The public ignores Bridgegate—or does it?
The headline of this article on a post-Bridgegate Pew public opinion poll is “Christie Story Attracts Little Public Interest.” That certainly appears to be true at first glance, when you read that only 18% followed his apology “closely.”
As for its impact:
There also has been little short-term change in opinions about Christie: 60% say their opinion of Christie has not changed in recent days, while 16% now view him less favorably and 6% more favorably.
Although that’s not a lot of swing, it’s still 10%, which in elections can be pretty huge. Read the details and you will learn that most of the negative change was among Democrats and Independents rather than Republicans:
Among Republicans, about as many say their opinion has become more favorable (9%) as less favorable (10%).
More Democrats say their opinion has become less favorable (25%) than more favorable (3%). Among independents, 14% say their opinion of Christie has become less favorable and 6% more favorable.
When the pollsters added those who followed the story somewhat, they got these results:
Republicans are about as likely as Democrats to have followed the Christie story at least fairly closely last week (43% vs. 46%). Like Republicans overall, those who followed the story at least fairly closely are closely divided between those who are more favorable to Christie (18%) and less favorable (17%), with 62% saying their opinion hasn’t changed.
Democrats who closely followed Christie’s apology have come to have sharply less favorable opinions of Christie: 43% say their opinion is now less favorable, 3% more favorable, and half (50%) say their opinion hasn’t changed.
That’s an even greater negative swing among Democrats than in those who paid close attention to his apology.
There’s little question in my mind that Bridgegate has therefore hit its target, although the press and Democratic leaders may have hoped for an even greater negative impact on Christie’s reputation. This story was never about the goal of souring Christie among Republicans, it was about muting his crossover appeal, which is (was?) his biggest strength. And in that sense, mission accomplished.
Rather, first mission accomplished, in terms of tarnishing Christie among Democrats and Independents. There will be a lot more effort where that came from because he’s seen as a dangerous frontrunner.
As for Republicans, they were already not so very keen on Christie, or at least conservatives weren’t. Simply put, many of them already detested and despised him, perhaps far more than most Democrats do. I’m not certain that the left understands the depth of the dislike of Christie among conservatives, but I’ve long thought that it would be a difficult slog for Christie to win the Republican nomination, and to do so the conservative vote against him would have to be split.
There’s another goal of the press’s focus on Bridgegate, and that is distraction. In that, also, the story may have done its job, at least a small amount:
The release of a book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that criticized the Obama administration drew even less interest than news about Christie. Just 11% followed news about Gates’ book very closely.
However, whether this has much to do with Bridgegate as a competing story or more to do with general public apathy about scandals is unclear, but I vote for the latter. In the years since Obama became president the public has gotten rather scandal-weary, and has become used to shrugging at some very shocking excesses and excusing them by saying they’re over-hyped and unimportant, or that every politician does the same thing. There may even be some spillover into increasing apathy about Republican scandals, too (real or hyped), although the press will probably never stop trying to accentuate Republican offenses and make light of Democratic ones.
Obamacare may be different because it’s up close and personal, and therefore may still be able to rouse the public out of its depressed and apathetic cynicism. I guess we’ll see in due time.
Judge through the lens of zeitgeist.
Wallet impacts may take a while to hit — but, per Machiavelli, they infuriate.
Time wounds all heels.
As I’ve made known previously, I am one of those who dislike Christie strongly. So I apologize in advance to any I may offend (not least of which, our gracious hostess on this site).
I’m glad Christie is being torn down. I think this was inevitable, and I’m glad it’s being done now instead of at the eleventh hour when it would be impossible to substitute someone else.
The left was going to turn on him the way they did with John “build the dang fence” McCain. Christie was only going to be a distraction.
BTW, I’m gratified to see the establishment’s favorite RINO discomfited; and through him, themselves. They’ll be hard-pressed to find another candidate even half as “electable.”
“Obamacare may be different because it’s up close and personal, and therefore may still be able to rouse the public out of its depressed and apathetic cynicism. I guess we’ll see in due time.”
I’d bet the farm on it, and in a sense, so have we all: If the electorate can’t be counted on to get angry when they are screwed in an overt manner, then there is no hope for America. Better to utterly destroy it and start over.
Caveat to that last thought:
As I’ve stated before on Instapundit, the one thing I fear is massive election fraud. Leftists and dictators [insert joke] always use the tactics of lies and misdirection to negate opposition.
The American public might overwhelmingly vote to get rid of the leftist agenda, but if the polls are rigged it will do two things:
1) negate the will of the people
2) sow doubt in everyone’s mind that anyone else agrees with them. Oxymoronically, we will all think that we are “lone voices crying out in the wilderness.”
Note: the opposite of point #2 is called a “preference cascade.”
Vote integrity should be the HIGHEST concern in red and purple states because it represents the truth. If we do our best and still lose “fair and square”, at least we will know the extent of our problems.
As a hard core conservative, you’re right, I despise Christie. However, I am a bit put off on how he is being brought down by a BS “scandal” that is pales in comparison to a dozen or more real scandals of the Obama administration. The whole thing is rather sad and pathetic to watch how the US press is in such decline.
That being said I just remind myself this is happening to a RINO who cozied up to Obama and has over a dozen examples where he promoted a left-wing agenda.
I just can’t believe what Matt and Director Mitch are saynig. Please explain to me why it’s better to have Hillary, Michelle, Nancy, or Harry as president than Christie.
” I’m not certain that the left understands the depth of the dislike of Christie among conservatives, but I’ve long thought that it would be a difficult slog for Christie to win the Republican nomination, and to do so the conservative vote against him would have to be split.”
Ah, but that is exactly how the Republican Party generally nominates its Presidential candidate, Reagan and Goldwater were the exceptions. The Party has its factions, and the conservatives in particular split their votes among the factions and current personalities in the running. The dreaded Party Establishment then nominates the squishy (or to use Reagan’s terminology, pastel colors instead of bold primary colors) candidate.
Christie’s path to the nomination has always been for his rivals to split the conservative vote into enough pieces that his remaining share is sufficient to secure the nomination. Could still happen, lots of time for many more events to occur that will affect the outcome.
Dan D (also Matt_SE to a certain extent, and whomever else this might apply to):
I’ve read many discussions that describe the process as you have described it.
I understand that too many conservative candidates split the vote. However, I do not agree with your analysis that the “dread Party Establishment” nominates the squishy candidate.
What you write would be correct if there were an old-fashioned convention like the ones I knew as a young girl, where the party regulars actually did nominate the candidate and were especially powerful in the case of a split vote. Once primaries became the way candidates were selected, that sort of process no longer was as true as it used to be.
Of course, the party does help the candidates it prefers by throwing its weight behind them as much as it can (offering opinions, of course, is one way). But candidates have no access to party money until after the nomination.
The people actually do vote for the candidates in primaries, and that’s how they are selected for the most part (there are also caucuses, which are more party-regulars-heavy, as well as crossover votes in many primaries). I happen to not like the primary process for a number of reasons, including also the fact that it divides blocks and can lead to weaker candidates. But what you write is mostly a myth that conservatives tell themselves (see this for a lengthy in-depth piece I wrote about this).
If conservatives want to win primaries, they need to unite behind a single candidate and stop complaining about the establishment. The establishment exists, but conservatives are hardly powerless and they need to stop blaming others, in my opinion. They need to get smarter about the game of politics, whether they like it or not.
neo, I don’t at all disagree with what you said, and think you might be misinterpreting what I hastily wrote rather than what I deeply meant, ha ha. I don’t think the dreaded Establishment is pulling the levers behind the curtain, it is simply that the dynamics of numerous factions result in the lowest common denominator sometimes being unappetizing to the remaining factions.
Conservatives unite around a single candidate? Unlikely, because Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Gary Bauer, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm all came at the conservative label in different ways, and did not necessarily have a lot of overlap in their appeal. Economic conservatives, paleocons, social conservatives, libertarian conservative fusionists don’t easily agree on their hot button issues in particular. Ronald Reagan was the rare leader who could unite many faction and at the same time appeal to non-party voters.
An enjoyable but less than profound read is “1920: The Year of the Six Presidents” by David Pietrusza. After the Wilson administration flameout both parties had multi-ballot conventions and both nominated dark horse candidates, because the factions were sufficiently split that the numbers eventually gravitated to Harding and Cox.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a messy sorting out in 2016 as well, because the grass roots of all these threads in the party and the conservative movement may believe this is their year. Split it too many ways, and the go-along, get-along crowd of rent seekers are likely to determine the outcome.
“I just can’t believe what Matt and Director Mitch are saynig.[sic] Please explain to me why it’s better to have Hillary, Michelle, Nancy, or Harry as president than Christie.”
I’ll give you TWO explanations:
1) The Practical Explanation:
You assume that Christie was the only one who could defeat Hillary (who I’ll just use as an example for all the leftists). What about Rand Paul? What about Ted Cruz? What about Scott Walker, among others?
Our bench is deep.
The left was going to turn on Christie. If it wasn’t this “scandal,” it would’ve been something else. Hell, they might’ve even made up some shit!
2) The Philosophical Explanation:
The problem with squishes isn’t just that they blur the distinction between the parties (i.e. “pale pastels”), making it difficult for voters to get excited. It is also that, if they lose they provide philosophic cover for the other side.
Romneycare implicated Romney so he couldn’t attack Obamacare. RINOs trying to “fix” Obamacare will implicate them (and us) if it fails anyway; we will now share the blame. Support of the Fed’s Quantitative Easing program implicates us if there should be a currency collapse or high inflation. Republicans who supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (feeding at the trough, like Newt Gingrich) implicated them so they couldn’t oppose what led to the housing collapse (which in turn led to the current economic malaise). I could go on…
Playing it safe is a proven recipe for defeat. Better to make our best case, IN THE BEST, SMARTEST WAY and let the people decide. If things go to shit after that, the voters themselves will be to blame (and may actually learn a lesson, as the Milennials seem to be doing). Our hands (and consciences!) will be clean, offering the people a real difference in direction.
@neo-neocon:
Though I generally agree with your point that conservatives have more voice now than in the past, I think you might be minimizing the resources available to the establishment candidate.
“But candidates have no access to party money until after the nomination.”
Only technically true. They have access to the same party donors that fund the establishment. The primary process simply cuts out the middleman. I’m not implying that the establishment is telling these people who to fund. But they don’t need to; the candidate’s positions are a big neon sign.
…much in the same way that Obama didn’t need to tell Lois Lerner to target the Tea Party.
Also, don’t forget the rules-change shenanigans that went on at the last convention. My understanding is that they made it more difficult for the base to have a voice. Not the endgame, but also not the right trajectory.
Rove may have put him up to it, but there’s no way Romney didn’t at least tacitly endorse the move.
Dan D:
Thanks for the clarification of what you actually meant. What it sounded like to me, however, was something that does get stated over and over by many conservatives, so I assume my points would still be relevant to somebody.
Of course there are many different stripes of conservatism. But that’s something conservatives need to find an answer to, and the answer would have to include compromise—not conservatives’ strong suit, I’m afraid. Otherwise they will remain split, and it will keep happening.
By the way, as I’ve said before, so far I favor Scott Walker in this race. However, if Christie were to be nominated, I would not hesitate to vote for him.
Matt_SE:
Of course the party influences people. That’s just the way it is, and will not end. That’s what parties do in political contests.
It’s not unfair, and it’s not some sort of nefarious undue and shady influence. Conservatives need to come to terms with it and stop bellyaching about it as though they’re victims of something vile.
Well, I would say that what McConnell is doing with the Chamber of Crony Capitalism IS vile. This isn’t “playing hardball,” this is trying to silence the opposition.
Poor form, old boy. Poor form.
And although life isn’t fair, and “politics ain’t beanbag” (heh), I guess I just expected a little more FROM OUR OWN FREAKIN’ SIDE!
This is why I have no compassion whatsoever for McConnell, and largely, the rest of the establishment. They’ve declared war.
And if that’s what they want, that’s what they’ll get.
So for instance in the McConnell case, I’ve advocated that if Bevin loses the primary, all Tea Partiers and like-minded people should vote for the Democrat. Time to play hardball; out come the long knives.
Matt_SE: You can’t be serious! Rand Paul wouldn’t get as many votes as there were copies of Atlas Shrugged sold last year. Ted Cruz or Scott Walker? I don’t know anything about Walker, but Cruz is Mr. Anti-Charisma.
Would it be nice if the American people would listen rationally to two political philosophies, then decide which one they prefer? Sure. Is it going to happen? No. Never. So why pretend it’s a possibility? Please don’t give me that guff about “Better to make our case in the best way.” I’ve heard it before. I was with the Goldwater campaign in 1964. How’d that work out for us?
Is the Left going to pile on Christie? Of course. Is that any different from piling on Walker, Cruz, Paul or anyone else? No. The difference is that Christie can handle it and I haven’t seen any sign that the others can.
Here’s a lesson from an old guy whose seen a lot of politics: “You can’t beat somebody with nobody.” If you can give Walker or Cruz national visibility and name recognition by 2016, by all means do it! In the meantime, Christie is the only one we’ve got who could beat a Democrat — more particularly the Democratic Party machine.
You can have a more conservative candidate or a winning candidate, but not both. Choose your pick.
Neo: “This story was never about the goal of souring Christie among Republicans, it was about muting his crossover appeal, which is (was?) his biggest strength. And in that sense, mission accomplished.”
I think thats also why the left is so quick to link the Koch brothers to legislation they disagree with like “stand your ground” or drug testing welfare recipients. Some liberals might think these things make sense. Dragging the Koch brothers into it suddenly equates those ideas as evil.
The American people do ‘listen’ to the two political philosophies. But they ‘listen’ emotionally and through the intellectual filters of the leftist memes that they have been indoctrinated with for the past 40+ years.
That indoctrination has led to a slim majority of the American public’s no longer believing in capitalism being an overall good and in accepting the meme that socialism is an overall good.
A slim majority of the public is willing to trade the promise of security for the incremental sacrifice of liberty.
All of this is why the general public is apathetic, scandal-weary and has become used to excusing and rationalizing as over-hyped and unimportant “some very shocking excesses”.
Cruz and Rand Paul are viewed as reactionary by independents. They are unelectable, so their conservative credentials are politically meaningless.
I only know Walker’s views on unions and budgets. On a return to Constitutional principles, illegal immigration, Iran’s pursuit of nukes, etc. I have no idea what Walker’s views may be.
Christie is a RINO. The ONLY reason to elect a RINO is SCOTUS appointments. Which will get us Breyer’s, Kennedy’s and Roberts’. Which means America continues its slow death by poison, rather than the quick death of revolution. But either way, liberty is just as dead, the trip merely takes longer.
Taking longer was viable before Obama but liberty has run out of time. 33 million ‘undocumented’ democrats is the tipping point into the ‘soft tyranny’ of socialism and socialism is the prelude to communism’s hard tyranny.
Richard Saunders:
Walker has given signs that he can handle it. He certainly got a ton of it in Wisconsin, more probably than Christie is getting now. He proved he’s a fighter, and a winner in a mostly-blue state. He doesn’t have as much charisma as Christie, but he’s not hated by conservatives—yet (the purists will no doubt find something to hate him for if he runs for president).
I agree with much of the rest of what you wrote. But I do not think Christie is the only viable candidate for 2016.
Geoffrey Britain:
The ONLY reason to vote for Christie is SCOTUS appointments?
How about federal judge appointments? They are incredibly important, too.
How about veto power of the worst excesses of a Democratic legislature?
How about foreign policy?
And do you really think Christie isn’t more fiscally conservative than any Democratic rival would be?
Keep going the way you’re going, and you will assure liberal/leftist dominance for the foreseeable future.
I’m not saying to support Christie in the primaries. He is not my favored candidate; Scott Walker is. But I support Walker because I think he is a conservative with integrity, fight, and yet actually has some chance of winning (unlike, for example, Paul). But if Christie is nominated I will support him with vigor, and for many more reasons than SCOTUS appointments (although I agree they are very important).
@Richard Saunders
First off, sir, I assure you that I can be, and indeed am, serious.
I think you underestimate Paul’s libertarian appeal to
Teh Yutes ™. His fiscal message resonates with conservatives. To the extent he embraces states’ rights, he can nullify both attacks from the left and right on social issues. Possibly most importantly, he seems to be likeable. He might have a problem (or, maybe an asset?) with his foreign policy stances. Also, is a bit too cozy with McConnell for my comfort. Currently, I view him as the “most electable” candidate (note, that doesn’t necessarily mean “the best”).
Cruz is the most authentic conservative mentioned. He already has national exposure both for his bucking of the Senate’s “old boys club” mentality, and for his stand against funding Obamacare. Unlike Rubio, he hasn’t (yet) betrayed the base on issues like amnesty. His team is quite savvy regarding new media like Twitter. He probably has a problem with the “likeability” thing.
Walker won street cred with his stance against unions, and his plucky resolve in the face of recall. He has fiscally managed his state well. He has EXECUTIVE experience, which may be a hot commodity after 8 years of Obama’s incompetence. Might have a problem with his views on amnesty, and his cri-de-coeur of “can’t we all get along?” vis-a-vis the establishment vs. the Tea Party. (nice…two French terms in the same sentence!)
And remember that there are other candidates in the running. Maybe there will be a dark horse, or maybe the party’s candidate will simply be the one who doesn’t stumble. Who knows? There’s a long way to 2016, and whatever happens will doubtless be affected by the results of 2014.
“Please don’t give me that guff about “Better to make our case in the best way.” I’ve heard it before.”
As opposed to what? Buying off voters better than the Democrats? I think that all reasonable people agree ™ you can’t out-bribe a Democrat. (see what I did there?)
And by the way, “making the best case” could mean a lot of things. I have my own opinions on that, but I’m not being paid as a consultant, so I’ll hold onto those for later. And of course, I could be wrong anyway (but if there are any rich patrons reading this, I’M NOT).
“…Christie can handle it and I haven’t seen any sign that the others can.”
Other than the vicious attacks leveled at Paul and Cruz during their respective filibusters, and Walker’s whole “recall thing.”
Yep, no evidence at all.
” Christie is the only one we’ve got who could beat a Democrat…
I think you forget that Paul, Cruz and Walker ALL beat Democrats to obtain their current offices. But maybe you meant, ” Christie is the only one we’ve got who could beat a Democrat in a blue state?”
Christie is not the only Republican officeholder in a blue, northeastern, liberal state. But like all the others that fit that description, he governs as a northeastern, liberal Republican.
Whether that translates into electoral success in other regions of the US remains to be seen, but I’m skeptical. Especially as regards the south.
Oh, and Walker’s recall? If that wasn’t “fighting the Democratic machine,” I don’t know what is!
“You can have a more conservative candidate or a winning candidate, but not both. Choose your pick.”
False dichotomy! FALSE DICHOTOMY!!!11!!1!
You can’t be serious ™.
Matt_SE:
When I used the word “vile” it was in the context of saying that “establishment” Republicans influencing people (for example, donors) to contribute to “establishment” candidates rather than conservative ones isn’t vile, it’s just politics. I never said that what some “establishment” Republicans might do policy-wise, in terms of governing or passing legislation, couldn’t sometimes be vile.
When insistence upon principled integrity is routinely characterized as the dogmatism of a purist, compromise has become collaboration.
Circumstance may make collaboration unavoidable but collaboration that is characterized as compromise is intellectual dishonesty.
Neo says “But candidates have no access to party money until after the nomination.”
And the irony is, a lot of party money comes from companies that have an interest in getting something from government, such as subsidies and contracts.
Conservatives aren’t going to push for federal spending, including pork for corporations. Hence no nomination from the establishment Republican party. They want the cash to keep rolling in, and it won’t if if doesn’t buy influence and goodies.
I didn’t care for Christie because when all was said and done, he really didn’t do much about the unions or cutting spending in his state except in his first year. After that, it’s been business as usual, and he’s voted to increase spending each year since. So…. he’s a pragmatic politician, but I wouldn’t bet the farm that if he were elected president, he’d do much to rock the boat.
But I’d rather see him debate and lose or win without his chances resting on New Jersey’s traffic problems. Which I already said aren’t of any interest to me or the rest of the country who’ve got better things to do, and who have their own traffic jams to bitch about. Even though Christie is a natural lightening rod for attacks, it’s still hard for me to imagine anybody caring about this 3 years from now.
Somewhere in these replies Scott Walker was mentioned — that’s a governor who took on the unions, the spending, and and his state is better off for it. Christie does a lot of talking, but Walker actually fought a war, and won. And he weathered a recall election in which the entire Democrat party across the country had mobilized to take him out. I’d say he’s a guy who would do the right thing about spending, and for that very reason, I doubt the Republicans want him to be a front runner. They just want to direct spending that benefits their own interests.
@ neo-neocon: 5:57…Okay.
@ Geoffrey Britain: 6:01…well said.
It looks like we all have our favorite candidates, for a variety of reasons (except for me, maintaining a Solomon-like dispassion above the fray).
*stroking beard*
Hmmm. Yes. It should be an interesting primary race.
Geoffrey Britain:
Well, you can characterize it all any way you wish, but that doesn’t make it correct.
Not all compromise is “collaboration.” Some compromise is reasonable compromise. And some things you might call “principled integrity” are inflexible purism that is self-defeating.
It’s a question of where you draw the line. What I see is that many “purists” draw the line at a place that is self-defeating and damaging to their own cause (and to the US as a whole).
neo,
I cannot argue that federal judge appointments, veto power of the worst excesses of a Democratic legislature, foreign policy and a more fiscally conservative policy than any Democratic rival are not important. It is those among other issues that troubles me most about Rinos.
“Keep going the way you’re going, and you will assure liberal/leftist dominance for the foreseeable future.”
That’s true and that’s a short term disaster. But it is a long term necessity. America’s republic is being led to the gallows and slowing down the rate of travel is not going to cut it.
The long term, insurmountable negative to RINO collaboration is shared responsibility for the coming debacle. The democrats will insist, as always, that we double down on their ‘solutions’.
The MSM will minimize, excuse and rationalize away ALL democrat responsibility. It will incessantly paint the Rino republicans as obstructionists and just as they did in the 2012 election and again in the 2013 ObamaCare debacle, enough of the public will buy it because they’re being told what they want to hear.
A slim majority of the public does not want to hear the truth. They are acting in a willfully blind manner and until reality strikes they will not part from the path we are upon.
A Rino Pres. Christie will bear the same ‘blame’ as did Bush and that ‘blame’ will stick with enough of the public. That will destroy ALL credibility with enough of the public, for any alternative the right might offer, once America goes over the cliff’s edge.
The ONLY hope the right now has is to absolutely and resolutely refuse to compromise on principle, so that when our Dunkirk/fiscal collapse occurs, we are in the exact same position Churchill was in, having in the 30’s refused to compromise his principles.
@ Geoffrey Britain, 5:39 (looks like I’m quoting scripture!)
“The American people do ‘listen’ to the two political philosophies. But they ‘listen’ emotionally and through the intellectual filters of the leftist memes that they have been indoctrinated with for the past 40+ years.”
I don’t think they listen even *that* much.
I think they’ve been shielded from their own folly for too long. It’s as simple as that. I expect that when they start feeling the effects in their wallets (the “democratic” kind of pain), they will lash out.
If they don’t, then the country is done and Teh People get what they deserve.
And I say that without a trace of acrimony.
neo,
No, not all compromise is “collaboration.” Some compromise is reasonable compromise. And, some things called “principled integrity” are inflexible purism that is self-defeating. I find this to be the case with many libertarians and both Ron Paul and Rand Paul’s thinking on several issues.
It is indeed a question of where the line is drawn.
Repeated compromise of principle is de facto collaboration. Compromise of interest is entirely different from compromise of principle. How late a minor may stay out on a date is open to compromise. Whether a minor may always stay out all night is a compromise of principle.
“What I see is that many “purists” draw the line at a place that is self-defeating and damaging to their own cause (and to the US as a whole).”
Absolutely true IMO, again the question is where do we draw the line. I vote for logic and reason as the determinative methods.
Geoffrey Britain:
I disagree with your Churchill analogy in your 6:25 comment (that last paragraph).
I’ve had arguments on these general issues on this blog many times before (see this, for example—a thread that garnered 200+ comments before it was through). The problem with your position, in my opinion, is that I do not think it likely that the future will turn out quite the way you see it, or the way you planned. In fact, I see your strategy as more likely to bring about the opposite of what you hope, and that mine has a better chance of success (which doesn’t mean I am all that optimistic about either way).
“Not all compromise is “collaboration.” Some compromise is reasonable compromise. And some things you might call “principled integrity” are inflexible purism that is self-defeating.”
This sounds nice and all, as if we were living in an era where the phrase “loyal opposition” still had meaning.
I believe that time has passed.
The left is currently in an undeclared war on America (undeclared and unannounced, just like the terrorist scum they coddle). You cannot compromise with that.
And not to pick on an issue you personally care about for points, but I believe this is directly comparable to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict:
One side is (at least moderately) reasonable and willing to compromise.
The other side insists on genocide.
There’s no way to bridge this gap, and there’s no way to compromise with a group that seeks your destruction.
I think too many Republicans of good will refuse to believe in “the war.” A noble mindset in a time of peace, but deluded and dangerous in wartime.
And now I have to go to work. I’ll respond in about 6 hours.
*Good talk, guys!*
Matt_SE:
I was not talking about compromise with Democrats.
I was talking about compromise in the sense of voting for Republicans that are not part of the full conservative program in every sense.
Neo,
“The problem with your position, in my opinion, is that I do not think it likely that the future will turn out quite the way you see it, or the way you planned.”
Let me assure you that I pray and deeply, that the way that I foresee the future unfolding is substantially erroneous. Nothing would give me greater pleasure. I wish for my daughter and all our children’s children to inherit a better world. Not the world of hate and dissension we currently inhabit.
“In fact, I see your strategy as more likely to bring about the opposite of what you hope, and that mine has a better chance of success (which doesn’t mean I am all that optimistic about either way).”
I’m not all that optimistic about the path I advocate either and you may well be right. The moderation of compromise motivated by good will is always to be preferred over confrontation.
I simply see little to no evidence in support of the contention that there is any willingness to actually compromise on the part of the left.
‘Matt SE’ eloquently and concisely makes my point, “This sounds nice and all, as if we were living in an era where the phrase “loyal opposition” still had meaning. I believe that time has passed.
The left is currently in an undeclared war on America (undeclared and unannounced, just like the terrorist scum they coddle). You cannot compromise with that.
And not to pick on an issue you personally care about for points, but I believe this is directly comparable to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict:
One side is (at least moderately) reasonable and willing to compromise.
The other side insists on genocide.
There’s no way to bridge this gap, and there’s no way to compromise with a group that seeks your destruction.
I think too many Republicans of good will refuse to believe in “the war.” A noble mindset in a time of peace, but deluded and dangerous in wartime.”
I would not vote for Christie. This new scandal has not changed my mind one whit.
I will happily vote for Paul, Cruz, or Walker, and very happily and enthusiastically for Palin. But I am done voting for the lesser of evils. If it comes to that, I will take Karl Denninger’s advice and write in Beelzebub.
rickl,
You might want to rethink that advice to, as a last resort, write in Beelzebub. That’s a vote for the left. Obama and Hillary are two of his most loyal minions.
Neo, I encourage you to deliberate Geoffrey Britain’s words thoughtfully instead of rebutting or countering them rapidly.
If you were elected to the House or Senate, who of those holding or recently having held such office would you most likely resemble? And prefer to resemble?
Don Carlos:
Rapidly? That’s rather humorous, since we’ve been waging this battle for quite a few years here. I have thought this through for years, and have argued it many, many times. There’s nothing hasty about my conclusions.
And actually, were I to be elected to Congress (which I cannot even imagine; I am highly unsuited to politics and especially membership in legislative bodies), I believe that I would most resemble someone quite uncompromising, although of course there’s no way to know for sure.
But as a voter (which is the perspective I am writing from; I am certainly not a member of Congress and I believe I am pretty safe in saying I never will be) I almost always would prefer a so-called RINO over the liberal or leftist Democrat, if that is the either/or choice. So if a RINO were nominated in my district or state, I would not hesitate to vote for him/her rather than a liberal opponent. I suppose I might consider voting for a really good third-party candidate whom I also thought had an actual chance of election. But I’ve never even been tempted by a third-party candidate in any election in which I’ve voted, not just because he/she had no chance of election, but because I’ve never found one with whom I agreed.
The same is true of write-in candidates. I see them as completely wasted votes. I am a practical person about my voting, and I take it very seriously. Sometimes I vote more to keep someone from office than because I’m so in love with the candidate for whom I’m voting. And actually, there are very very few candidates I’ve ever been really keen on, even back when I was a Democrat.
I think if Blert’s reference to controlling the primaries is put into effect, then Neo’s pragmatic voter tactics would resolve itself of any lingering conflicts with other factions.
However, my prediction for politics and elections fixing things aren’t that high.
If people cannot vote for a person due to their conscience, then don’t vote at all. That option has always been open. There is no requirement that someone support an election via participation any more than there is a requirement that someone participate in a war to show their support.
I don’t really see people as Democrats or Republicans, or as conservatives vs Others. I see only 2 shades: human and non-human. On the political side, there’s defenders of humanity and then there are enemies of humanity.
Whether Chris C wants to fight the Left or not, is really his decision. Unless it isn’t, then it no longer matters.
@ neo-neocon, 6:54
“I was not talking about compromise with Democrats.”
The problem is, the same analysis applies to RINOs. Or at least to the RINO leadership: Boehner, McCain, McConnell, Graham…the usual suspects.
They have not only taken every opportunity to belittle conservatives (“Hobbits”, anyone?), but now they’re taking actions to make sure they get no representation at all.
Once again, it parallels Obama’s behavior: you can be a religious person, as long as you keep it to yourself. No proselytizing, no actions that impact society. This isn’t “living your religion”, it is praying in the closet.
By the same turn, RINO leadership is saying to conservatives that they can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t upset the establishment. No tipping the corrupt apple cart. They are happy to have dissent, as long as it is soft and ineffectual.
What they believe in is antithetical to conservatism. There’s no compromising with that.
This discussion proves, once again, that human beings only learn through pain. If a popular, charismatic, articulate, guy is kept off the ticket in 2016 because he’s not conservative enough, those who did it will have their asses handed to them by the Democrats. And as those true-blue conservatives come staggering out of the election, bruised, battered, and beaten, moaning, “Wha’ hoppened? Wha’ hoppened?” God willing and the creeks don’t rise, I’ll be there to hand each one a lollipop. And yes, I will say, “I told you so.”
You’re all still fixated on candidates as the origin point of election success when the necessary origin point is a proper Marxist-method activist popular movement.
If the popular movement wins, the candidate will win. And how the popular movement is defined will define the candidate.
Keep in mind: Obama is merely an avatar of a successful proper Marxist-method activist popular movement, not a messiah who’s created a following.
This means you the people need to do the heavy lifting, not delegate the work to this or that candidate.
Add: The avatar nature of Obama is a main reason why Obama seems Teflon, despite failings in office that would normally seem to sink a presidency.
However justified – and I do it, too – critics are essentially targeting a hologram.
It’s not the man. When Obama is past his usefulness, he’ll be shed or repurposed by the movement, like Gore and WJ Clinton.
The power of the Left is in its movement. The Right needs its own proper Marxist-method activist popular movement in order to compete.
Saunders hasn’t accounted for Democrat fake votes in elections, which determine several critical events.
There is this idea that you can have a candidate that can “win” elections, but no idea about how this can be done when the Democrat party only needs to print enough votes in Chicago to offset any “win” factor.
Neo-
I meant Geoffrey’s comments on this thread, not the topic which you have rassled with for years. I found them persuasive, and worthy of consideration, even though I agree with him.
Many patriots have faced the prospect of what to do when the ruling elites in power are the ones bringing their own nation to destruction.
Von Stauffenberg pulled a Von Stauffenberg. But others have done just as extreme acts, while others have preferred more moderate, time investment, strategies.
Even if the Democrats were to beat the current Republican status quo powers, the minority party might not take it as a permanent stain on their record. They can always hope for a seat at the table or victory over time. The GOP is not worried about the long knives vis a vis losing to Democrats. That is perhaps, why the GOP is losing popular support. The GOP leadership seems more worried about stomping on the remnants of the Tea Party, what the IRS has yet to finish off. The GOP also seems more worried about primary battles and funding.
If centralized control of the economy is a bad thing, why would anyone trust in the centralization of power in the hands of the GOP? To do what, save the nation from itself? That’s not going to happen.
People are still using popular catch phrases and codes for a new paradigm.
For one thing, it’s not the conservative matrix that people are using to judge individuals. What matters is whether an individual realizes the Left is evil and whether that individual realizes the Left needs to be destroyed, not debated with or compromised with at DC.
It really doesn’t matter what their ‘politics’ is after that. This is not, fundamentally, a political problem. It’s more like a religious problem between Good vs Evil or one faction of religious believers against a death cult. People can call it patriots and anti-Americans, pro humans and enemies of humanity as another way of looking at it.
The problem the GOP is causing us is that they are fixed in the old days where buttering up Democrats ensured American success, via wealth redistribution and the devaluing of the currency via inflation and money printing (which most of it seemed to go into the pockets of Democrats and Jews like Soros, if not overseas aid to the Soviet Union).
The wealth creation is running out. Free individuals being turned into slaves doesn’t generate as much wealth as the FDR administration magickally created out of thin air to fund welfare and WWII. Some of this is seen in the economy, including the world’s economy, while other signs are seen in the increasing use of gestapo tactics like the IRS and SEIU/ACORN grassroots organizations. There’s less need for gestapo tactics when the bribes are sufficient.
What matters in a leader and a people is what they do, not what they say they will do. Function over form. Reality and substance over illusion and promises of hope.
No single leader can fix what the Left took a century and more to destroy. That’s not feasible or realistic. As Eric mentioned, one needs a bottom up structure. While I don’t necessarily think Marxism is the model to emulate, the need for a bottom up hierarchy not a top down one, is clear.
While the wealth has dried up due to bring redistributed and looted via money printing, the power has curiously been husbanded for a few select families and social classes. If wealth is to be redistributed forcefully… what of power?
@Eric 5:04, 5:13
Interesting analysis, but I think you got it exactly backwards: Obama was elected because of his cult of personality, his being the “perfect negro candidate”.
People were voting for the person (or what they imagined was the person), not the ideology.
In fact, if you asked the common voter I think they would be hard pressed to name Obama’s ideology. Not party, ideology.
Milennials are not out there pining for some socialism. The one group that does fit your description is the Tea Party: a movement that wants smaller government, and it has no single leader.
@Richard Saunders 2:24
“If a popular, charismatic, articulate, guy is kept off the ticket in 2016 because he’s not conservative enough, those who did it will have their asses handed to them by the Democrats.”
I hope somebody will alert me when such a candidate appears. I’ll give him a look.
Ymarsakar:
“Jews like Soros”? Money doesn’t go into the pockets of non-Jews “like Soros”?
Soros’ having been born a Jew has nothing to do with anything, so why mention it? Soros is not religiously a Jew, by the way; he is an atheist and is Jewish in origin only. He is markedly anti-Israel as well (see also this).
First, I agree with neo-neocon: I don’t hate Soros because he’s a Jew (I didn’t actually know that before you mentioned it), I hate him because he’s a statist/leftist. I hate all statists, even the “nice” ones, because what they do isn’t nice. It’s evil.
I’d love to believe in the Christian mantra of,” hate the sin, not the sinner” but to be honest, I don’t really believe the two are separable in most cases.
People ARE what they do. When they stop DOING evil, they will stop BEING evil.
Secondly, a nice link to a post on AoSHQ this morning concerning the original topic:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346484.php#346484
Soros’ having been born a Jew has nothing to do with anything, so why mention it?
He’s a stick figure effigy for all the Jews in Israel that like favoring Palestinian terrorists over Israeli life and the ones in America that vote Democrat, are former communists or current socialists, and like to bank themselves into luxury while getting a boat load of people killed. I didn’t have any specific New England former or current Jews in mind, but Soros is just the “Top of the heap” representative for that kind of Jewry.
Essentially, anti semitic Jews, which are probably the worst in that the worst anti American is an American. Soros is not like some off the card reject or non-standard Jew. There’s plenty of people that are like him, who just happen to be of Jewish origin or current practice. How they justify their position is hard to say, but that’s not the point.
Some seems to have cut off all ties to their ancestry, like Soros. Others use the validation of being a Jew to claim moral righteousness and judgment to judge American sins or Israeli sins or Holocaust sins. What’s funny is that they do this to support people like Obama, Iran, and so forth.
Soros, for those that aren’t aware, got his wealth starting off by working for the Nazis in liquidating the property and jewels of Jews who the Nazis got rid of. That’s how Soros, using his “Jewish” connections, got his starting capital and eventually become a billionaire or whatever he is now, manipulating currency markets (probably 2008 housing crash as well). In an interview, Soros said he felt no regret or guilt about it. The Jews, after all, didn’t need their stuff any more. So highlighting Soros’ “Jewry origins” does prove a point. A certain point, at least.
I’m almost certain that people like that work in Wall street right now, making bank off of the misfortunes of others, while telling themselves they are good people because they vote Democrat. Goldmach Sachs, Jewish leaders in it? Maybe, maybe not. Democrats are rich via corruption, they don’t need to be Jews. It’s just one of their things, like the Black Caucus or the GLAAD wing, or the GLBT wing.
Interesting analysis, but I think you got it exactly backwards: Obama was elected because of his cult of personality, his being the “perfect negro candidate”.
People were voting for the person (or what they imagined was the person), not the ideology.
I think it proves Eric’s point. The Left created the mass movement that popularized the Blackie called Obama. That’s a cult of personality, yes, but it was created by the Left mostly, not Obama. People were voting what they were told to vote. It didn’t matter to them who it was (any black is the First Black, except Clinton’s whiteness being the first black President) or what ideology it was backed by.
Ymarsakar:
Now that you’ve clarified, I see what you were referring to.
Ymarsakar said, “Saunders hasn’t accounted for Democrat fake votes in elections, which determine several critical events.”
Quite wrong, my friend. I’m from Philadelphia, where people like to vote so much they vote after they’re dead! Where we coined the saying, “Vote early, and vote often!”
The key to 2016 will be to offset the urban machine-generated votes with suburban, independent, and “I just like the guy” (aka LIV) votes.
The key to 2016 will be to offset the urban machine-generated votes with suburban, independent, and “I just like the guy” (aka LIV) votes.
How are you going to offset 10-20 million fake votes just by going for the suburbs?
There doesn’t seem to be any margins to take from such low population centers.
Fake votes are produced in correlation to the number of non Democrat voters there are, up to a certain infrastructure maximum. That maximum has been increased lately by Obama and his fascists.
Gore couldn’t destroy enough republican ballots from overseas, even with his numerous recounts. But they have gotten better in places other than Florida.