Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
I listened to the most recent podcast with Mike Murphy and I'm sorry to say he deserves some serious pushback.
First, I have to disagree with Rob Long, someone I greatly admire and take great pleasure in reading and listening to on the podcasts, but Mike Murphy isn't mixing it up with anyone. He is hiding and lobbing rhetorical grenades from afar.
Murphy begins at around 35 minutes in the podcast,
I will say, eh, gently in hindsight, I will say I was absolutely damn straight correct! (laughter) and I'm going to raise a little more ricochet blood pressure here cause I'm not a conservative concerned with being in a debating society I'm a conservative (that wants to) save the country.. The big theory was, one, you RINOs don't get it, you don't understand the secret grassroots tea party magnetism and shes going to win and everything..well, She was a fiasco, she lost and she lost big...
What was Murphy correct about? That O'Donnell would lose? Well, if that is his assertion then he is making a straw man argument. No one in the entire thread of 160 odd comments said they thought she would win. Was he correct that O'Donnell was a flawed candidate? Again, every comment stipulated that she was less than ideal to seriously flawed. The argument was a larger one, one which Murphy is either blind to or convieniently dismisses and has a viscerally defensive reaction to.
The main thrust of the argument, at least my argument, was that the fault for O'Donnell lies squarely on the GOP insiders and Castle himself, and to blame the voters for rejecting him, or to bash the tea party folk is missing the point. This is especially maddening coming from someone who is supposed to understand politics. Beyond this, I fail to see how lecturing voters for rejecting Castle on this basis helps the Republican party in any way. Does Murphy believe that these party purists, as he calls them, are going to pine for a Mike Castle because they nominated the wrong gal last time?
Two, I'm mad at Jim De Mint and Sarah Palin. You don't go into a primary and activate it, stir it up and cause a less electable candidate and then ditch the state and never come back. Totally irresponsible ....
I don't really think Murphy really believes this. Had Palin and De Mint moved into a Hampton Inn in Dover for six weeks I doubt the outcome would have been any different, would it have Mike?
Murphy then goes onto to cite Sharon Angle and Kirk of Colorado as similar, though not exact, examples
...we had three winnable seats that we decided to get on team Harry Ried and beat ourselves. So she didn't win, and the RINO knucklehead Washington consultants who don't know anything were right in 3 out of 3 cases and the argument, that's more legitimate but I still disagree with, which is that we are going to hold our breath until we get party purity is a great strategy to have political relevance in 150 years.
Mike Murphy knows how to pack a lot into thirty seconds, I guess he writes TV ads for a living, but seriously, he starts out by talking about three seats, neither the Nevada seat nor the Colorado seat was guaranteed to go GOP had Mike's preferred candidates won their primaries. Cherry picking the races after the fact in glib assertions may fool some folks in a media contest, I don't know, but it doesn't work with thoughtful people. Conspicuously absent in this construct were Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Pat Toomey.
The going to hold our breath until we get party purity line is a neat reduction of the opposing argument. ...150 years? Really, Mr. Murphy? It has been proven in one election cycle! Marco Rubio instead of Charlie Crist, and Pat Toomey instead of Arlen Specter, and much more evidence in the House 62 seat pick up.
No, Mr. Murphy isn't debating with anyone here but himself.
I really don't think he wants to debate either as he said in the podcast,
I'm not a conservative (concerned with?) being in a debating society, I'm a conservative that (inaudible...wants to) save the country.
We all want to save the country Mike, you aren't alone. So go pursue your next cause but please stop reducing your opponents arguments and then ditch the thread and never come back. Totally irresponsible...
- Comment (71),
- Quote,
- UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Ah, and a fine donnybrook it was, Franco. I agree with your characterization of the thread, I don't recall any O'Donnnell supporters who were basing their support on her chances of winning. The prevailing attitude, as I recall, was that O'Donnell was a kamikaze run at a RINO pour encourager les autres. Many thought that a good idea, many others would rather have governed.
Edited on Dec 17 at 11:36 amMay '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Nobody thought O'Donnell would win? Gotta throw the flag on that. I know plenty of people who thought that. And can't forget the scars left by the debate here. Unforgivable Curses scorched the very air.
I still can't see how supporting the candidacy of Christine O'Donnell helped any discernable cause. Or Sharron Angle, for that matter. It was acting out, pure and simple.
I enjoy Mike Murphy's contributions. Keeps us grounded and wary, with actual real arguments we can use in actual real life.
Sep '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Kennedy,
No one on the entire thread thought she would win, is the quote. I read the entire thing last night. Throw a flag? Then link.
Acting out? Oh, now voters are children, got it...
Jun '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Franco: Kennedy,
No one on the entire thread thought she would win, is the quote. I read the entire thing last night. Throw a flag? Then link.
Acting out? Oh, now voters are children, got it... · Dec 17 at 10:06am
I just skimmed the thread again also. Whew! The ,Eds. were throwing flags all over the field! Still, no one predicted or was optimistic of a win for O'Donnell. Only two posts ( #16,#43) reacted to previous comments asserting that she can't win with something like "She might, if she wasn't pig-piled by Republican establishment."
Edited on Dec 17 at 10:31 amMay '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Ah, maybe was confusing it with the rougher accusations elsewhere. Standing by the acting out thing, though. There was no message other than Sending a Message.
PS, Murphy did convey the idea that there were two schools of thought on the O'Donnell thing, only one of which said she would win. And many primary voters are kids. Just look at the nutroots throwing a tantrum on the Dem side. Primaries attract extremes.
Edited on Dec 17 at 12:01 pmJun '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
The message came across pretty well, I thought: "These people are so freaking crazy mad that they don't care if they take the entire Republican party down with them " I bet that not a few Senators from both parties had bad dreams the night before the Ominous Bill of a little harpy in a witch's hat who might not win, but who could take them down as well.
Edited on Dec 17 at 01:03 pmMay '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
I agree with Kennedy- there was optimisim on one thread (Katievs?)- I don't know which- where even pragmatic Scott Reusser mentioned that he had sent some money. Miracles could happen, etc. Others were, unless my memory is gone, waxjng pretty optimistic.
I had several debates with Franco over the definition of a RINO, and that is where I strongly agree with Murphy and disagree with several, including Franco. If you are around 50% in the ACU rankings, you may be lukewarm, but every Dem except the Nelsons (Florida and Nebraska) is under 30%. Would you call Ben Nelson, at 47% a DINO? Middle of the road may be roadkill, but it is a far cry better in a deep blue state, than someone who is under 20%- unless you are an all-or-nothing, Don Quixote dreamer who needs to be a pure loser. Rove put a lot of money into Nevada because there was a ghost of a chance in spite of a bad campaign by a bad candidate.
Looks to me like Murphy was basically right. His only real error was not recognizing how far gone California is.
May '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Pilgrim
I bet that not a few Senators from both parties had bad dreams the night before the Ominous Bill of a little harpy in a witch's hat who might not win, but who could take them down as well. · Dec 17 at 12:11pm
Edited on Dec 17 at 01:03 pm
True, true, and I was happily wrong on that. But hey, it's rare.
May '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
I don't care to read that miserable thread again, but I recall avoiding direct judgment of Castle or O'Donnell. My point, which Mike did not address, was and is essentially that a Republican is not always better than a Democrat.
Ten years ago, it might have mattered that a Republican who often stands in the way of GOP goals will stand with the GOP on some issues. Today, voters have very different concerns. The main issues are fundamental and sweeping changes which will require political courage. An occasional vote for temporary tax cuts is worthless in the long-run. Such actions merely slow our descent into tyranny and fiscal disaster.
Today, a candidate who cannot be counted on to stand behind repeal of Obamacare, substantial reform of entitlement programs, cessation to non-essential expenditures and a handful of other core issues might as well be a Democrat. If the fundamentals are not addressed, then the rest is just smoke.
Voters who believed that O'Donnell was willing to face these fundamental issues but Castle was not made a wise gamble on O'Donnell.
And Republicans who criticized the decision after the voting were plainly helping Democrats win.
May '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
To clarify (though I shouldn't have to), I am not talking about a purity test. However the person stands on gays or wars or stem cells and so on, it's only the fundamentals that matter now. That means reforming the government at its core to again honor the Constitution. That means local and limited government -- the core principles of the Republican Party.
I don't know where Castle or any of the others stood on those issues. But if the voters in those states believed such incumbents would not help to fundamentally repair government, then none of those candidates' other views mattered. If a "RINO" will stand up for those core principles while he blocks the GOP on smaller issues, fine. If not, he's no better than a Democrat.
Edited on Dec 17 at 06:35 pmJul '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
How did Mr. Murphy's squish RINO candidates do?
Why should we listen to him again?
Sep '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Michael Tee: How did Mr. Murphy's squish RINO candidates do?
Why should we listen to him again? · Dec 17 at 4:55pm
Bingo!
Jul '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Of course a Republican is always better than a Democrat. There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat, period.
And on the margin, an additional Republican whose election throws the House or Senate to the GOP is a huge plus for Republican power.
Jul '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Kenneth
There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat, period.
· Dec 17 at 5:46pm
There is, colon: Collins, Snowe, Brown, McCain......
Jul '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Excellent post, Franco.
I won't listen to the podcast, but from what I've experienced Here at Ricochet with Mike Murphey and my perception of his attitude, I think if I see him around these parts anymore I'll take WFB's advise and cancel My Own GD subscription.
Jul '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Jimmy Carter: Excellent post, Franco.
I won't listen to the podcast, but from what I've experienced Here at Ricochet with Mike Murphey and my perception of his attitude, I think if I see him around these parts anymore I'll take WFB's advise and cancel My Own GD subscription. · Dec 17 at 6:45pm
Hey, Mike's not my favorite contributor, either. But as conservatives, we should be open to dissenting views. Otherwise, we can just go join the liberals and learn their talking points - that's easy.
May '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Michael Tee: How did Mr. Murphy's squish RINO candidates do?
Why should we listen to him again? · Dec 17 at 4:55pm
Reasonable question, Michael. As always, you need to view it in context. How many Republicans of any type- leftish, "RINO", or right, won any statewide California office?
Kenneth, Ben Nelson has a lifetime ACU rating of 46% or so. I would put anyone between 40 and 60 as "moderate", so Ben Nelson is a moderate Dem (the only one), and Collins and Snowe are moderate Repubs. Between 60 and 80 are the soft/squishy/wet conservatives, and above 80 we should stop complaining.
Jul '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Duane Oyen
Michael Tee: How did Mr. Murphy's squish RINO candidates do?
Why should we listen to him again? · Dec 17 at 4:55pm
Reasonable question, Michael. As always, you need to view it in context. How many Republicans of any type- leftish, "RINO", or right, won any statewide California office?
Kenneth, Ben Nelson has a lifetime ACU rating of 46% or so. I would put anyone between 40 and 60 as "moderate", so Ben Nelson is a moderate Dem (the only one), and Collins and Snowe are moderate Repubs. Between 60 and 80 are the soft/squishy/wet conservatives, and above 80 we should stop complaining. · Dec 17 at 8:16pm
Oh, yeah. The Cornhusker Kickback was about as moderate as it gets.
May '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Kenneth
Duane Oyen
Michael Tee: How did Mr. Murphy's squish RINO candidates do?
Why should we listen to him again? · Dec 17 at 4:55pm
Reasonable question, Michael. As always, you need to view it in context. How many Republicans of any type- leftish, "RINO", or right, won any statewide California office?
Kenneth, Ben Nelson has a lifetime ACU rating of 46% or so. I would put anyone between 40 and 60 as "moderate", so Ben Nelson is a moderate Dem (the only one), and Collins and Snowe are moderate Repubs. Between 60 and 80 are the soft/squishy/wet conservatives, and above 80 we should stop complaining. · Dec 17 at 8:16pm
Oh, yeah. The Cornhusker Kickback was about as moderate as it gets. · Dec 17 at 8:20pm
Anecdotes are not data, Kenneth, you know that. Sen. Nelson is a moderate, going by the data. Er, a corrupt moderate, of course!
Jul '10
Re: Toy Camaro, Toy Arguments
Duane Oyen
Kenneth
Duane Oyen
Michael Tee: How did Mr. Murphy's squish RINO candidates do?
Why should we listen to him again? · Dec 17 at 4:55pm
Reasonable question, Michael. As always, you need to view it in context. How many Republicans of any type- leftish, "RINO", or right, won any statewide California office?
Kenneth, Ben Nelson has a lifetime ACU rating of 46% or so. I would put anyone between 40 and 60 as "moderate", so Ben Nelson is a moderate Dem (the only one), and Collins and Snowe are moderate Repubs. Between 60 and 80 are the soft/squishy/wet conservatives, and above 80 we should stop complaining. · Dec 17 at 8:16pm
Oh, yeah. The Cornhusker Kickback was about as moderate as it gets. · Dec 17 at 8:20pm
Anecdotes are not data, Kenneth, you know that. Sen. Nelson is a moderate, going by the data. Er, a corrupt moderate, of course! · Dec 17 at 9:01pm
Well, let's imagine Ben Nelson represented Massachusetts instead of Nebraska...