Partisanship aside, this seems like bad news for democracy.
You’re against open primaries on the grounds that primaries are a political party’s business. (Using that line of thinking, it is hard to see why the government should even be involved in a political party’s primary.) How is it the government’s business whether someone lost a primary? Why shouldn’t someone be eligible to run for office in the election for a government position, just because they couldn’t win in a political party’s primary?
Bob-1 makes one of those those points with which I agree in theory. But, living as I do in the real world rather than a theoretical model I wind up in disagreement as a practical matter.
It’s the same with term limits. In principle there should be no reason state law should stand between a candidate and the voters’ election of that candidate merely due to some prior number of terms or years. In practice, we see that nonagenarians dodder up to their life-long seats and vote as their party leadership demands and their staff directs — and urge that “somebody do something”.
It should be gracious good custom for a candidate to avoid being a sore loser. It should not need to be a matter of law. And if FDR were half the president George Washington had been there would be no reason Clinton or W or now Obama should be put — by law — into a lame duck position. The mere threat of possibility of continued service should make the office of president more responsive. But FDR was who and what he was, and the presidency is now term-limited, and frankly I’d support constitutional limits on senators and congress critters, perhaps using the first such amendment with an expiration date, some 50 years or so from now.
And yet the same folks who excoriate the evils of the market for goods and services seem to have this enormous blind spot (willful or otherwise) for a market in political power. (Monopolizing iPads = bad; monopolizing coercive political power = ok!)
If you’re worried about individuals monopolizing political power, then you should be against the sore loser law. Incumbents usually win their primaries (with the support of the party) and, in the case of Congress, usually win their general elections. Sore loser laws (horrible name, but I’ll use it) prevent upstart challengers from taking another swing at bat and overturning the monopoly.
As for term limits: I’m for voter choice.
As for corporate monopolies: I’ll resist commenting on your little insight, and just say that you should stop trying to derail and hijack this thread, you horrible horrible horrible troll.
This is why it is beneficial to allow “losers” to run in the general election.
For Janice Hart, the disease was the cure. I bet a lot of people voted more carefully after that.
And good news for the Democrats since Senator Lugar’s followers will be able to send a strong message about REAL party loyalty to Mourdock, namely teaching him about how disloyal it is to challenge a incumbent Senator who has represented you for 30 years…
This is why I also laugh the so called principles of the “Tea Party” Republicans. They only cry about party loyalty when it benefits them 🙂
And good news for the Democrats since Senator Lugar’s followers will be able to send a strong message about REAL party loyalty to Mourdock, namely teaching him about how disloyal it is to challenge a incumbent Senator who has represented you for 30 years…
Was this post intended to not sound insane?
Because if so, it failed.
Rand,
Coming from you that’s a compliment given how far over the edge you have gone since President Obama took office. I remember when this blog was mostly about space and not crazy anti-Obama entries…
I remember when this blog was mostly about space and not crazy anti-Obama entries…
Then you “remember” things that never happened. This blog has never been mostly about space, and I’ve never posted a “crazy anti-Obama entry.”
Rand,
Thanks Rand for showing that De Nile is not just a river in Egypt 🙂
Did Lugar represent his constituents’ best interests?
I also laugh the so called principles of the “Tea Party”
Yes ya do. Which is really funny because you don’t understand those principles. One of those principles is not to be loyal to any party. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend. What you don’t get and it’s hard to understand why because you’re not stupid; Is that the tea party would vote for any democrat that actually supported their issues. It is not about party. Principles matter.
Ken,
You are the one that don’t understand them.
The basic principles of the Tea Party are no different that those of Senator McCarthy and the John Birch Society, which is basically a return to the good old days of the 1920’s America. Limit women’s rights, limit the voting franchise, limit the rights of working Americans, impose a strict moral code on the nation, banish evil foreign influences, brand those who oppose you as enemies of the state… Just look at states like Wisconsin, Virginia and Arizona to get a glimpse of what a future Tea Party America would look like.
The problem is that many Tea Party supporters like you buy the rhetoric without looking under the hood to see what the Tea Party really stands for.
What Ayn Rand stated about the Libertarians party basically covers the Tea Party the Libertarians have rebranded themselves as.
[[[I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.]]]
This statement is especially relevant…
[[[Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office.]]]
Given how the candidates that now label themselves as Tea Party were mostly losers before. Mourdock is a good example, having failed twice while running for representative.
And good news for the Democrats since Senator Lugar’s followers will be able to send a strong message about REAL party loyalty to Mourdock, namely teaching him about how disloyal it is to challenge a incumbent Senator who has represented you for 30 years…
I have to agree with Rand. What are you smoking, Thomas? The whole point of a primary is precisely to decide who represents the party in running for an office, not an opportunity for Republican voters to ritually abase themselves before a party hack, no matter how long that guy might have served in a particular office. There is absolutely no obligation for those voters to support a particular candidate. Nor is there an obligation for a candidate to bow out of an election.
The mere fact that Lugar was voted out indicates he lost the mandate and was unworthy of representing the Republican party while Mourdock was.
This is why I also laugh the so called principles of the “Tea Party” Republicans. They only cry about party loyalty when it benefits them
Ever wonder why the tea party didn’t peter out in 2010? Maybe you ought to think about it a little and what principles actually drive that movement.
Karl,
[[[There is absolutely no obligation for those voters to support a particular candidate. Nor is there an obligation for a candidate to bow out of an election.]]]
Nor by your reasoning is there any obligation that the losing candidate should endorse the winner, which seems to be a problem for Rand and the Tea Party.
Under the bridge with you.
Seriously TM, you are a smart guy and have a lot to offer in a conversation but you seem to take a point of view that is not based on how you really feel but instead on how you can get a reaction from other people.
I have a lot more respect for Bob-1 and Jim because they come out and say what they really feel and argue about it but you just seem to say whatever will get people to argue, regardless of your true feelings on any subject.
There is something to be said for a devil’s advocate but if that is what you are going for, you need to put in some effort.
“This is why I also laugh the so called principles of the “Tea Party” Republicans.”
Then you are truly certifiable since it was YOU who declared the Tea Party as totally dead and of no influence whatsoever…..
Why do you laugh at that which, according to you, does not exist?
Matula sees everything thru the lens of the Tea Party. Mere mention of those words drives him mad.
Correlation is not causation, and negative lags are contraindicated.
“Matula sees everything thru the lens of the Tea Party. Mere mention of those words drives him mad.”
Even thought TM declared the Tea Party dead and of no further influence.
Gregg,
It is dead in Nevada. And in Delaware. And even Alaska given what happen in the last Senate race. And if you haven’t notice none of the Tea Party favorites had much success in the Republican Presidential Primary. Its only kicking in a few states like Indiana and Utah where the locals have wised up to it.
That should be “haven’t wised up to it”…
Oh so you’ve changed yoru position!
Before the TP was totally dead. a NON-factor.
Gone-ao.
Oh but NOWWWW it’s still there in certain locations.
You are pitiful.
You write whatever fevered idea crosses your brain without the slightest nod to consistency.
In fact squire Tomaso I’ve been expecting you to reverse your position:
I KNEW that when you proclaimed the TP dead, you only did it to make Conservatives feel badly and to gloat over them on false pretenses.
You hadn’t a clue whether or not the TP was dead and everyone knew it.
But I also knew that you would rue the day you said that, and would be crazily, wildly, hysterically trying to find some way you can back out of your proclamation on the death of the TP.
Which is why every single time I saw you mention them I reminded you of your claim they were dead and a non-factor. Watching all the time to see how you’d try to wiggle them back into life.
And now we see it….
You are pitiful, TM and transparent as well, and oh so easily played simply by using your own words. You say the rudest nastiest things – the latest being……
“The basic principles of the Tea Party are no different that those of Senator McCarthy and the John Birch Society, which is basically a return to the good old days of the 1920′s America. Limit women’s rights, limit the voting franchise, limit the rights of working Americans, impose a strict moral code on the nation, banish evil foreign influences, brand those who oppose you as enemies of the state… Just look at states like Wisconsin, Virginia and Arizona to get a glimpse of what a future Tea Party America would look like. ”
The only thing I can’t figure is whether you knowingly say these falsehoods to buck up your sagging morale, or to just make people feel terrible and dispirited.
Either way, it’s pretty pitiful
Gregg,
You know Rand really misses are the truly interesting stories.. Like this one about Tea Party Darling Michelle Bachmann.
By TIM MAK | 5/8/12 7:19 PM EDT Updated: 5/8/12 8:34 PM EDT
Rep. Michelle Bachmann is now officially a Swiss miss.
If the prospects for the Tea Party are so bright why did she decide to become a Swiss Citizen? And so much for her flag waving and bragging about what a great country the USA is. If she believed that then why is she waving the Swiss flag now?
TM scribbles:
“Like this one about Tea Party Darling Michelle Bachmann…………….
If the prospects for the Tea Party are so bright why did she decide to become a Swiss Citizen? ”
But TM…the TP is dead and a non-factor according to you?
Oh yes you changed your mind…they are sort of alive in some isolated places…..
Oh but now you are saying they are really a non-factor
(If the prospects for the Tea Party are so bright…)
Really Tom I think you need to lie down and decide on a position. If the multiple voices in your head will allow that.
If you want to know why she did it, why not ask her?
Oh no I forgot – you just like to cut, mock, denigrate and scoff. Facts have no place in your universe.
Do you think your assumptions as to her motivations hold ANY water at all?
Not a drop.
Gregg,
Yes, look at what a factor the Tea Party was in the Presidential primaries…
But actually, all kidding aside, I would be interested in what motive a seating member of Congress would have in voluntary becoming a citizen in another country. She claims its because of her children, but that seems like a thin excuse.
Of course the big question is if she is now a citizen of Switzerland what is she doing in the House of Representatives? Its seems that as a citizen of Switzerland she now has a conflict of interest when voting on anything that might involve Swiss interests.
So despite you jokes there are some serious questions folks should be asking about this. But I expect they won’t…
Thomas Matula supports a senator who couldn’t even bring himself to sign onto the Heller amicus brief, thus putting himself to the left of Russ Feingold, because it’s “disloyal” to oppose an incumbent.
Sore losers suck. Gore sucked and so did Murkowski. Losing is part of life, just like winning, and in both situations people need to suck it up and act the best they can.
Senator Murkowski wasn’t a sore loser, instead she had the courage to go on fighting for the benefit of the good folks of Alaska and they voted for her to be Senator in the election. So it sounds like you are the sore loser because Dennis Miller couldn’t cut it in the general election even when his opponent had the handicap of being a write-in candidate for the office.
Back under the bridge with you.
“Disloyal” to oppose an incumbent? Is TM a royalist? If the incumbent fails to uphold principle it is the duty of the voting constituents to replace him with someone who does. The party suffers when deadwood is not cut out. And what of Lugar’s loyalty to the party?
Partisanship aside, this seems like bad news for democracy.
You’re against open primaries on the grounds that primaries are a political party’s business. (Using that line of thinking, it is hard to see why the government should even be involved in a political party’s primary.) How is it the government’s business whether someone lost a primary? Why shouldn’t someone be eligible to run for office in the election for a government position, just because they couldn’t win in a political party’s primary?
Bob-1 makes one of those those points with which I agree in theory. But, living as I do in the real world rather than a theoretical model I wind up in disagreement as a practical matter.
It’s the same with term limits. In principle there should be no reason state law should stand between a candidate and the voters’ election of that candidate merely due to some prior number of terms or years. In practice, we see that nonagenarians dodder up to their life-long seats and vote as their party leadership demands and their staff directs — and urge that “somebody do something”.
It should be gracious good custom for a candidate to avoid being a sore loser. It should not need to be a matter of law. And if FDR were half the president George Washington had been there would be no reason Clinton or W or now Obama should be put — by law — into a lame duck position. The mere threat of possibility of continued service should make the office of president more responsive. But FDR was who and what he was, and the presidency is now term-limited, and frankly I’d support constitutional limits on senators and congress critters, perhaps using the first such amendment with an expiration date, some 50 years or so from now.
And yet the same folks who excoriate the evils of the market for goods and services seem to have this enormous blind spot (willful or otherwise) for a market in political power. (Monopolizing iPads = bad; monopolizing coercive political power = ok!)
If you’re worried about individuals monopolizing political power, then you should be against the sore loser law. Incumbents usually win their primaries (with the support of the party) and, in the case of Congress, usually win their general elections. Sore loser laws (horrible name, but I’ll use it) prevent upstart challengers from taking another swing at bat and overturning the monopoly.
As for term limits: I’m for voter choice.
As for corporate monopolies: I’ll resist commenting on your little insight, and just say that you should stop trying to derail and hijack this thread, you horrible horrible horrible troll.
Sometimes it is not a question of being a “sore loser”. Look at the story of Janice Hart:
http://jaypgreene.com/2010/06/15/whats-in-a-name-sometimes-electoral-victory/
This is why it is beneficial to allow “losers” to run in the general election.
For Janice Hart, the disease was the cure. I bet a lot of people voted more carefully after that.
And good news for the Democrats since Senator Lugar’s followers will be able to send a strong message about REAL party loyalty to Mourdock, namely teaching him about how disloyal it is to challenge a incumbent Senator who has represented you for 30 years…
This is why I also laugh the so called principles of the “Tea Party” Republicans. They only cry about party loyalty when it benefits them 🙂
And good news for the Democrats since Senator Lugar’s followers will be able to send a strong message about REAL party loyalty to Mourdock, namely teaching him about how disloyal it is to challenge a incumbent Senator who has represented you for 30 years…
Was this post intended to not sound insane?
Because if so, it failed.
Rand,
Coming from you that’s a compliment given how far over the edge you have gone since President Obama took office. I remember when this blog was mostly about space and not crazy anti-Obama entries…
I remember when this blog was mostly about space and not crazy anti-Obama entries…
Then you “remember” things that never happened. This blog has never been mostly about space, and I’ve never posted a “crazy anti-Obama entry.”
Rand,
Thanks Rand for showing that De Nile is not just a river in Egypt 🙂
Did Lugar represent his constituents’ best interests?
I also laugh the so called principles of the “Tea Party”
Yes ya do. Which is really funny because you don’t understand those principles. One of those principles is not to be loyal to any party. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend. What you don’t get and it’s hard to understand why because you’re not stupid; Is that the tea party would vote for any democrat that actually supported their issues. It is not about party. Principles matter.
Ken,
You are the one that don’t understand them.
The basic principles of the Tea Party are no different that those of Senator McCarthy and the John Birch Society, which is basically a return to the good old days of the 1920’s America. Limit women’s rights, limit the voting franchise, limit the rights of working Americans, impose a strict moral code on the nation, banish evil foreign influences, brand those who oppose you as enemies of the state… Just look at states like Wisconsin, Virginia and Arizona to get a glimpse of what a future Tea Party America would look like.
The problem is that many Tea Party supporters like you buy the rhetoric without looking under the hood to see what the Tea Party really stands for.
What Ayn Rand stated about the Libertarians party basically covers the Tea Party the Libertarians have rebranded themselves as.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
[[[I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.]]]
This statement is especially relevant…
[[[Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office.]]]
Given how the candidates that now label themselves as Tea Party were mostly losers before. Mourdock is a good example, having failed twice while running for representative.
And good news for the Democrats since Senator Lugar’s followers will be able to send a strong message about REAL party loyalty to Mourdock, namely teaching him about how disloyal it is to challenge a incumbent Senator who has represented you for 30 years…
I have to agree with Rand. What are you smoking, Thomas? The whole point of a primary is precisely to decide who represents the party in running for an office, not an opportunity for Republican voters to ritually abase themselves before a party hack, no matter how long that guy might have served in a particular office. There is absolutely no obligation for those voters to support a particular candidate. Nor is there an obligation for a candidate to bow out of an election.
The mere fact that Lugar was voted out indicates he lost the mandate and was unworthy of representing the Republican party while Mourdock was.
This is why I also laugh the so called principles of the “Tea Party” Republicans. They only cry about party loyalty when it benefits them
Ever wonder why the tea party didn’t peter out in 2010? Maybe you ought to think about it a little and what principles actually drive that movement.
Karl,
[[[There is absolutely no obligation for those voters to support a particular candidate. Nor is there an obligation for a candidate to bow out of an election.]]]
Nor by your reasoning is there any obligation that the losing candidate should endorse the winner, which seems to be a problem for Rand and the Tea Party.
Under the bridge with you.
Seriously TM, you are a smart guy and have a lot to offer in a conversation but you seem to take a point of view that is not based on how you really feel but instead on how you can get a reaction from other people.
I have a lot more respect for Bob-1 and Jim because they come out and say what they really feel and argue about it but you just seem to say whatever will get people to argue, regardless of your true feelings on any subject.
There is something to be said for a devil’s advocate but if that is what you are going for, you need to put in some effort.
“This is why I also laugh the so called principles of the “Tea Party” Republicans.”
Then you are truly certifiable since it was YOU who declared the Tea Party as totally dead and of no influence whatsoever…..
Why do you laugh at that which, according to you, does not exist?
Matula sees everything thru the lens of the Tea Party. Mere mention of those words drives him mad.
Correlation is not causation, and negative lags are contraindicated.
“Matula sees everything thru the lens of the Tea Party. Mere mention of those words drives him mad.”
Even thought TM declared the Tea Party dead and of no further influence.
Gregg,
It is dead in Nevada. And in Delaware. And even Alaska given what happen in the last Senate race. And if you haven’t notice none of the Tea Party favorites had much success in the Republican Presidential Primary. Its only kicking in a few states like Indiana and Utah where the locals have wised up to it.
That should be “haven’t wised up to it”…
Oh so you’ve changed yoru position!
Before the TP was totally dead. a NON-factor.
Gone-ao.
Oh but NOWWWW it’s still there in certain locations.
You are pitiful.
You write whatever fevered idea crosses your brain without the slightest nod to consistency.
In fact squire Tomaso I’ve been expecting you to reverse your position:
I KNEW that when you proclaimed the TP dead, you only did it to make Conservatives feel badly and to gloat over them on false pretenses.
You hadn’t a clue whether or not the TP was dead and everyone knew it.
But I also knew that you would rue the day you said that, and would be crazily, wildly, hysterically trying to find some way you can back out of your proclamation on the death of the TP.
Which is why every single time I saw you mention them I reminded you of your claim they were dead and a non-factor. Watching all the time to see how you’d try to wiggle them back into life.
And now we see it….
You are pitiful, TM and transparent as well, and oh so easily played simply by using your own words. You say the rudest nastiest things – the latest being……
“The basic principles of the Tea Party are no different that those of Senator McCarthy and the John Birch Society, which is basically a return to the good old days of the 1920′s America. Limit women’s rights, limit the voting franchise, limit the rights of working Americans, impose a strict moral code on the nation, banish evil foreign influences, brand those who oppose you as enemies of the state… Just look at states like Wisconsin, Virginia and Arizona to get a glimpse of what a future Tea Party America would look like. ”
The only thing I can’t figure is whether you knowingly say these falsehoods to buck up your sagging morale, or to just make people feel terrible and dispirited.
Either way, it’s pretty pitiful
Gregg,
You know Rand really misses are the truly interesting stories.. Like this one about Tea Party Darling Michelle Bachmann.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76072.html
Michele Bachmann claims Swiss citizenship
By TIM MAK | 5/8/12 7:19 PM EDT Updated: 5/8/12 8:34 PM EDT
Rep. Michelle Bachmann is now officially a Swiss miss.
If the prospects for the Tea Party are so bright why did she decide to become a Swiss Citizen? And so much for her flag waving and bragging about what a great country the USA is. If she believed that then why is she waving the Swiss flag now?
TM scribbles:
“Like this one about Tea Party Darling Michelle Bachmann…………….
If the prospects for the Tea Party are so bright why did she decide to become a Swiss Citizen? ”
But TM…the TP is dead and a non-factor according to you?
Oh yes you changed your mind…they are sort of alive in some isolated places…..
Oh but now you are saying they are really a non-factor
(If the prospects for the Tea Party are so bright…)
Really Tom I think you need to lie down and decide on a position. If the multiple voices in your head will allow that.
If you want to know why she did it, why not ask her?
Oh no I forgot – you just like to cut, mock, denigrate and scoff. Facts have no place in your universe.
Do you think your assumptions as to her motivations hold ANY water at all?
Not a drop.
Gregg,
Yes, look at what a factor the Tea Party was in the Presidential primaries…
But actually, all kidding aside, I would be interested in what motive a seating member of Congress would have in voluntary becoming a citizen in another country. She claims its because of her children, but that seems like a thin excuse.
Of course the big question is if she is now a citizen of Switzerland what is she doing in the House of Representatives? Its seems that as a citizen of Switzerland she now has a conflict of interest when voting on anything that might involve Swiss interests.
So despite you jokes there are some serious questions folks should be asking about this. But I expect they won’t…
Thomas Matula supports a senator who couldn’t even bring himself to sign onto the Heller amicus brief, thus putting himself to the left of Russ Feingold, because it’s “disloyal” to oppose an incumbent.
Sore losers suck. Gore sucked and so did Murkowski. Losing is part of life, just like winning, and in both situations people need to suck it up and act the best they can.
Senator Murkowski wasn’t a sore loser, instead she had the courage to go on fighting for the benefit of the good folks of Alaska and they voted for her to be Senator in the election. So it sounds like you are the sore loser because Dennis Miller couldn’t cut it in the general election even when his opponent had the handicap of being a write-in candidate for the office.
Back under the bridge with you.
“Disloyal” to oppose an incumbent? Is TM a royalist? If the incumbent fails to uphold principle it is the duty of the voting constituents to replace him with someone who does. The party suffers when deadwood is not cut out. And what of Lugar’s loyalty to the party?