Toomey is serious

[Brittain33]

The weeping over former Congressman Schwarz is especially amusing to me. We're made to believe that he, like Gilchrist, fell to some fascist in a 2008 primary. Well, that's wrong. Schwarz lost in the primary in 2006. Walberg won the 2006 General election in this "R +2" district by five points - 51% to 46%. That's not a very close race, Don. Sorry.

He defeated a fourth-tier loon of a Democrat who raised approximately $300 for her campaign. The race had no business being remotely competitive.

[Brittain33]

We never hear complaints about Gilchrist directly helping Kratovil so spare me the lectures, ok?

People are welcome to complain about Gilchrist, and that's fine. The fact is, there is always a possibility the loser in a primary is going to do something like this. It's not a personality defect on Gilchrist's part, but a predictable cost of what the Club For Growth was attempting to do. No incumbent can be expected to go quietly when he is targeted, and that goes equally for a conservative incumbent who then runs as a third party or who endorses a conservative third-party spoiler out of the same motives.

The Club For Growth is responsible for the outcomes of its endeavors. Gilchrist owed no one anything. This is why when they first started playing around with primaries, trying to unseat Marge Roukema, they worked with the Bush Administration to get her an appointment to a federal sinecure. Unfortunately that didn't work out, but it's the kind of planning you need to do if you don't want your stealth move to blow up in your face, like the MD-01 primary did.

[Brittain33]

Sure it shouldn't have been remotely competitive given a week Dem opponent but consider the year, the fact that it isn't a strong Republican district and that the defeated Republican incumbent threw a fit about losing the primary.

Considering all of those facts, most of which were predictable, you end up with Rep. Schauer. This doesn't redeem the Club For Growth's efforts or Walberg's attempts to graft his style of conservatism to a centrist district.

[Brittain33]

How is it not a personality defect? All you're giving is some lame excuse for him being a baby. The conservative that argued about saving the party and electability but decides to run as a third party candidate would be just as much of a crybaby.

Just because the Club for Growth did something doesn't mean the response was right.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's predictable. Criticizing Gilchrist won't make a difference--the point is that it's an outcome you have to prepare for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice attitude. We should have just crowned him Congressman for life. 

[/quote]

You'd like to study political science, right? Are you familiar with the dynamics surrounding the overthrow of PMs in parliamentary systems, particularly Westminster? Getting the person out of office is only part of the occasion. You have to make sure they are defeated in such a way that they don't take you out on the way down. This is why John Major replaced Margaret Thatcher--the people who took her out, like Heseltine, bore the curse of Brutus and were tainted by association.

I repeat, you have to get out of the mindset of what is fair or unfair. This is about effectiveness. There are ways to replace a moderate with a conservative, and it's ok to do so, but you have to pick the right conservative and do it effectively. You can not expect people to simply back out and accept having their career ended, so you have to plan around it. If you fail to do so, you are incompetent, even if that's unfair.

What, in the above paragraph, do you disagree with? If you identify that, I'll understand where you're coming from.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering all of those facts, most of which were predictable, you end up with Rep. Schauer. This doesn't redeem the Club For Growth's efforts or Walberg's attempts to graft his style of conservatism to a centrist district.

I don't know why them being predictable is a reason to dismiss them (other than you just being...yourself).

I am not "dismissing them." You're saying that because you aren't understanding what I am saying, so you take it as something different, and pointless, and responding accordingly. It's ok, I forgive that, but we need to work through it. I am saying they are factors you have to plan for if you want to succeed. I am saying that whining that someone is being a baby does not accomplish anything, because people behave the way they do. Primaries are as much about human behavior as they are about numbers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They backed someone more in line with their views, and got someone diametrically opposed to their views. Gilchrist can be a sore loser or not but IT DOESN'T MATTER because the outcome is that Kratovil is the Rep. Sore losers can be neutralized or made less sore. In part, this is the responsibility of the candidate who unseats them.

I don't see why you won't recognize that the Club For Growth can, on occasion, make tactical mistakes even if we accept their overall mission is acceptable. Are they above criticism? Do you think they have the perfect recipe for seating conservative politicians, but "no one could have predicted" that the moderates they've unseated and the Democrats and independents who won't support their candidates aren't going to help them stay in office?

The Club For Growth could accomplish their goals better. That's what this is about. The way they're doing it now, they're making things worse for their cause. It does not have to be that way and you don't have to accept Rep. Gilchrist if enough people in the district done. In the end, though, democracy will happen, and the CFG can't undo that.