No less than a few minutes had passed after word got out that Democrat Rep. Parker Griffith would be switching to the GOP before Erick Erickson of RedState.com had called on him to be defeated in a primary. This is quite simply the stupidest reaction anyone could ever have to this news. Griffith represents a district that has been held by the Democrats for 140 years. So rather than embrace the fact that Griffith is more than we should normally hope for in this particular district, Erickson has decided to target him, a move that will easily hand the seat right back to Nancy Pelosi. I can’t stress this enough: this is a district that hasn’t had a GOP representative since 1869! Rather than embrace other Blue Dogs and try to use this moment to drive a permanent wedge in the Democrat caucus, Erick would prefer to widen the wedge in our own party. Democrats like Griffith were once a strong part of the Reagan Coalition, and rather than try to build a similar coalition for the future, the confused Mr. Erickson would rather continue burning the village to the ground. Attacking the Parker Griffith’s and the Kelly Ayotte’s and the Carly Fiorina’s of the world is idiotic considering the states and districts they are running in. We should expect a stronger conservative than Charlie Crist in Florida, but to ask for one to the right of Fiorina in Califorinia, Ayotte in New Hampshire, or Griffith in Alabama-5th is a pipe dream.
Follow Max Twain on Twitter.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Well, I would not vote for him in the primary; General? Yes.
A true Conservative Republican is the best thing, but a Blue Dog is next best thing. A DINO is better than a RINO, even though Conservatism is the best.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Erickson is very stupid about many things, but when it comes to political science theory he is transcendentally stupid.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Erick Erickson should die of gonorrhea.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
[...] Progress, Scorecard’s Blog, The Note, TPMDC, Talking Points Memo, Michelle Malkin, Guardian, race42008.com, Daily Kos, Betsy’s Page, Real Clear Politics, Townhall.com, Hot Air, National Review, [...]
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Forget about Carly – she is a total incompetent – a walking gaffe machine when she goes off script.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
With all due respect – Erickson not only has every right to his opinion, he may be right in this particular case. I’m thankful to Mr. Griffith for defecting, but at the same time I don’t think we necessarily owe him any huge favors. There are already several solid, well-funded candidates running in the GOP primary, and they had a very good chance of unseating Mr. Griffith.
If he wants to be a Republican, fine, but let him prove that he really wants to be a Republican. A competitive GOP primary will be a good test of his metal, and a chance for the local base to kick the tires on theri newly minted GOP Congressman. If he can’t rally his own party’s base in his own district, he doesn’t deserve the seat.
Not only should this primary go on, but I have absolutely no problem with Eirckson or anyone else endorsing someone other than Parker Griffith.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
but McCain got 60%+ in Alabama-5. it’s a conservative district! Griffith barely won in 2008 and has voted against most of the bigger Dem priorities. he may very well have lost to a Republican in 2010. there’s just no comparison between Alabama 5 where McCain won by 20-some point and New Hampshire, where Obama won by 10 points, or California where Obama won by
in fact, Alabama 5 is more conservative than Florida. in 2004, Bush won Florida by 5% but won Alabama-5 by *20* points. in 2008, Obama won Florida by 2 points but lost huge in Alabama 5.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“There are already several solid, well-funded candidates running in the GOP primary, and they had a very good chance of unseating Mr. Griffith.” That is part of the reason he jumped ship in the first place.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I might also add that – as of this moment – it looks like Erickson made the right call on Rubio (gaining fast), the right call on Hoffman (Scozzafava quickly imploded AND endorsed a Dem), and the right call on Toomey (who is now the favorite to win over Specter). He has more of an interest in conservative governance than GOP majorities alone, and he makes endorsements using that paradigm. Sometimes it works electorally, sometimes it doesn’t – there’s abosolutely no reason to deny the man his right to make endorsements.
As for his stances on Ayotte and Kirk – both have challengrs, both challengers have every right to run, and GOP voters have every right to endorse either side. There may be a place for moderates, but if you can’t win a primary among your district GOP, you should not be the GOP nominee in that district. So while I personally have no problem with moderates running, I do have a problem with denying the voters a choice if there are other legitimate candidates.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“So while I personally have no problem with moderates running, I do have a problem with denying the voters a choice if there are other legitimate candidates.” BINGO.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
In 140 years we have not found a way to capture this seat, so the first thing you, Adam, suggest we do is primary the man? We need 40 more to take back the House, why on earth should we waste precious resources on a divisive primary when we should just be grateful to have the seat after a century and a half of failure in the district. There are plenty of Blue Dogs not switching sides that deserve more attention then Mr. Griffith.
Sometimes it seems some people, like Erick, would like to relive 1964 again and again and again and again, rather then learn the real lesson of that cycle, which was to branch out, open up, and embrace Griffith-style Democrats. That’s how we won 49 states, that’s how Gingrich won back the House, and that is our only chance to do it again in 2010.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
#9,
He didn’t make the right call on Hoffman. Hoffman lost and cast the deciding vote for the health care bill in the House. As for Toomey, Specter was no prize but the Erickson’s of the party told him he was no longer welcome and Specter tried to save his own ass. And Toomey will probably still lose if I were to put money on it.
He can have an interest in conservative governance all he wants – but it won’t matter unless Republicans can regain the majority.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Erickson thinks he is more important than he is. Remember the deadline he imposed for supporting Hoffman?
Seriously. (edit) Erick Erickson.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“We need 40 more to take back the House, why on earth should we waste precious resources on a divisive primary when we should just be grateful to have the seat after a century and a half of failure in the district.” Well I cannot speak for anybody else, but I for one am not going to waste resourses on this particular primary pissing contest. However, the grass roots Republicans of the 5th District have the right to choose their next Congressman.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I should say, Hoffman lost and his Democrat opponent cast the deciding vote.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Erickson’s reaction was downright stupid. Even if he wants him to be primaried, why say so immediately. This could dissusade others from following suit. Now, they’re thinking could be, “What is the use of changing parties if I have to run against them anyway. I may as well stay where I am” He probably can get reelected if he voted against the things that were probably factors in him changing. We should welcome these people, not kick them in the teeth.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“He didn’t make the right call on Hoffman. Hoffman lost and cast the deciding vote for the health care bill in the House.” True, but he recieved about 7 and half votes for every vote that Queen Dede got. That worked out nicely for us, haha
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Smartest comment I’ve heard all day. Exactly right.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
still don’t understand this logic:
“We should expect a stronger conservative than Charlie Crist in Florida, but to ask for one to the right of Fiorina in Califorinia, Ayotte in New Hampshire, or Griffith in Alabama-5th is a pipe dream.”
when Florida’s actual election performance is much more like New Hampshire’s than either of them is like Alabama’s 5th district. by any logic that Crist is not conservative enough for the people he’s running to represent, the representative from Alabama-5 needs to be even more conservative than somebody running in Florida.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
11 –
I merely said we have no oblisgation to clear the field for him. I also realize that this districke leans heavily to the right and Griffith got in by the skin of his teeth (and changed becasue he knew he would lose). If he can make it out of the primary, more power to him, but it would be termendously unfair to short-circuit an already active primary process. Griffith is welcome – but we don’t change the rules for him.
We won in 1984 because we had a popular incumbent. That same incumbent got his start in 1964 by endorsing Goldwater, and was widely seen as the Erick Erickson of his day, especially in 1976.
9 –
Scazzafava would have imploded with or without Hoffman. She was a tremendously weak candidate who ran an abominable campaign. Hoffman at least put up a fight for the seat rather that run a non-campaign out of some bizatrre sense of entitlement. The only reason Owens won was becasue Scozzafava’s name was still on the ballot and she drew a 5% protest vote from loyal Republicans who refused to follow her to the dark side but didn’t want Hoffman. Had nHoffman been on the ballot alone or as the GOP nominee, he would have won.
13 -
Erickson is a citizen with a right to his opinion. Feel free to disagree but don’t tell him to shut up.
By the way – can we get a moderator to delete that lovely chunk of foul language as is our policy?
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Erik Erickson’s importance has been blown way out of proportion, but he’s learned the secret to Daily Kos’ success, which is to be as politically obnoxious as possible.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
16 – We can beat most of those people in the general election anyway. I see know real reason to bait them across the aisle if we can just as easily unseat thme and replace them with people who won’t give John Boehner and Eirc Cantor headaches on key votes.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
You don’t know that. Erickson should have kept his mouth shut. Instead he poisoned the well and backed a candidate that admitted he knew jack shit about the district and called issues important to the voters ‘parochial concerns’. If this was the “hill to die on” then maybe that fat asshole should have done his homework.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“Scazzafava would have imploded with or without Hoffman.” Haha, yeah loose cannons tend to have a habit of exploding.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Max I live in the 5th district.
No one with a (D) behind their name had a chance in 2010. Griffith was forced to denounce Pelosi and literally question her sanity in order to satisfy his constituents.
If Griffith ran as a Democrat it would have been as a James Trafficant Democrat denouncing the entire leadership of his party.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
23 –
Erickson did not create Doug Hoffman. The Conservative Party of New York created Doug Hoffman. Any one who knows New York knows that the Conservative Party is rather large, very well established, and exists for the sole purpose of keeping th GOP in line. Not getting the Conservative Party endorsement is the kiss of death for almost any GOP candidate in the state(with the possible exception of those in NYC).
The primary mistake on behalf of those who selected Scozzafava was that they left the CPNY out of their calculations. By that reckoning alone, the Scozzafava campaign was doomed before it ever started, let alone before Erickson made his call.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
[...] Erickson! If you want to know what is wrong with conservatives, just read this. “…No less than a few minutes had passed after word got out that Democrat Rep. Parker Griffith would be switching to the [...]
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Uh…and where is the language police on this thread?
Kavon? Kris?
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Doug,
That makes sense. I think you’re right – and I think that probably is the case in many conservative districts in the South this year.
I just absolutely HATE HATE HATE how Erickson thinks he is judge and jury of all that is conservative and Republican. Who the hell died and made him king?
Aside from that its just stupid politics to automatically fire our guns on a convert as Huckabeealltheway points out.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
True enough. But Erickson started the fire and made it a national litmus test for the right once the talk radio blabosphere picked up what was written on his blog.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
29 –
With all due respect – who the hell died an made you king?
You have a right to your opinion of what is acceptable, Erickson has a right to his. May the best man win – and that’s why we have primaries.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
“But Erickson started the fire and made it a national litmus test for the right once the talk radio blabosphere picked up what was written on his blog.”
Great – so Erickson started the riot. But in that particular case, I can guarantee you that someone else would have if he didn’t. I personally knew Scozzafava was dead the minute the CPNY announced they weren’t going along with it – I didn’t even care who the candidate was (by the way, I might point out that one Sean Hinnity is a registered CPNY member – trust me – it would have broken without Erickson). In the Hoffman scenario, Erickson just happened to the be the first tremor of a very large earthquake that eventually included both Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Please don’t NY23 this guy. If he can win as a GOP in a seat held by demo’s for generations, let him WIN.
Sometimes, our own party is nothing but idiots.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“Sometimes, our own party is nothing but idiots.” That describes the Queen Dede wing of our party perfectly.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
From Palin:
http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/6938291387
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
“Please don’t NY23 this guy”
NY23 is not a verb – it is not a definable action – nor is this situation really all that similar. There are already two active, serious contenders for the GOP nomination, and to short-circuit that process would be anti-Democratic. If Griffith can make it out of the primary, great. A primary reason in the party switch was that Griffith knew that he was up agaisnst stiff oppostion and was likely to lose. This was a very conservative democratic seat and the GOP was winning all the presidential votes there.
The ability to “NY23″ somebody is part of the democratic process, and frankly it is the status quo. The actual action would be to SHORT CIRCUIT that process in ordet to impress a non-representative nominee on the local party. This could be a verb – and I would suggest it be linguistically formed as “to Scozzafava.”
So, the real argument is not whehther to “NY23″ Mr. Griffith (as the NY23 situation is the status quo in America), but whether to “Scozzafava” the people of Alabama’s 5th District.
I’m am highly aggainst the practice of Scozzafaving anybody.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“I’m am highly aggainst the practice of Scozzafaving anybody.” Haha, I am looking for Webster’s Dictionary to decribe ‘to Dede’ somebody.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Ohio. Yes, it does descrbe those in the queen’s sector. but not Dede S’s. You seem some don’t want the tent opened up and letting new ideas, differnt colored folks or even those that are not as far right nuts as other who think they own the party. A conservative is not the same throughout the country. We all don’t fit into the narrow little boxes.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
35 I see her ghosttweeter is active.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. Last time we took over congress, it was partly by Members switching to the republican party. Remember, as a member of the Republican Party, he is likely to change his voting habbits as he will be in Caucus with other Republicans/Conservative Members.
So, I say the more the merrier. Welcome aboard, and lets hope this is one of many.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Oh, and we don’t won’t to discourage others fro Switching as well.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“35 I see her ghosttweeter is active.” Exibit A of how silly the Romney camp is. They just cannot stand the fact that a woman from Alaska has anything half intelligent to say to they have to pretend that a ghost-writter is behind everything she says.
Haha, no we do not fit into narrow boxes, but if Queen Dede fits into the box than the box is too big.
BTW, very few of us are against new ideas per se and we are not against people of color joining the party. Another straw man.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“You seem some don’t want the tent opened up and letting new ideas”
“Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. Last time we took over congress, it was partly by Members switching to the republican party”
For me these two comments illustrate two key fallacies. The first is that the perty should be open to all new ideas. This is not true if said ideas deviate from the party’s biasic primciples. A party without basic principles has nor reason to exist and no use.
The second is that the GOP is the “bigger picture”. For many of us, America as whole is the bigger picture, and if the GOP has to srew over the American people to take a congressional majority, then I want no part of it.
I have no problem welcoming Griffith aboard – but for heaven’s sake let’s at least kick his tires before we drive him off the lot!
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Well said Mr. Brickley! Shhhhhhh, I am about to send a breif Christmas e-mail to an old political friend in the old country and I will tell him about your brilliance.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Adam Brickley,
The main problem I still have with Erickson’s position as well as yours is that it has not even been 24 hours since the man switched parties (giving us a major boost in the upcoming healthcare fight in the House) and Erickson’s ilk are calling for him to be taken out in a divisive primary.
The major point is, the first thing we should be doing now that he has switched is to try and get as many like minded Blue Dogs to follow suit, because America’s healthcare policy depends on it. What a historic blow to the Democrats it will be to have their members defect just as they come up to vote on their major piece of legislation.
Instead, you and Erickson scare off any potential ship-jumpers with promises of bloody primaries.
I’m sorry Adam, but the biggest picture right now is to capture the House of Representatives and acquire the subpoena power that comes with it to crack down on President Obama. Nothing right now is more important then that. The ability for a GOP House to check and balance this out-of-control President is the #1 priority.
A divisive primary for a 140-year held democrat seat? not nearly as high a priority.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Ohio Joe,
I like Sarah, and I defend her status as a front-runner, but I think many of us wish she spoke as clearly in interviews as she does in Facebook notes. It would be of tremendous benefit to her and us.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Max,
I’m with you on this one. Griffith is a pro-life, fiscal conservative.
That’s all I need to know. Let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth, or discourage other Blue Dogs from jumping ship. If Griffith is welcomed with open arms, I could easily see 5 more Democrats switching in the next 2 months.
The Blue Dogs are essential if we are going to build a new majority, and quite frankly, most of them take balanced budgets more seriously than most Republicans. We could use more of them in Congress.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“The main problem I still have with Erickson’s position as well as yours is that it has not even been 24 hours since the man switched parties.”
Erickson clearly believes that the parthy switch was a bad thing – so his best move is to criticize it. It’s also consistent with his record of rejecting nominees being imposed on electorates without primaries (see: Scozzafava).
“Instead, you and Erickson scare off any potential ship-jumpers with promises of bloody primaries”
There are already two legit GOP candidates. Griffith jumped into a bloody primary without our help. I just don’t beleive in cancelling the democratic process in order to woo this orany other Democratic defector. Nobody is calling for new candidates to jump in – I’m just asking that the people we RECRUITED into this race not be forced out by the GOP power brokers.
My top priority is that the GOP voters in teh district get to pick their own nominee.
“giving us a major boost in the upcoming healthcare fight in the House”
Griffith was already a no-vote on this legislation – we gain nothing from his defection in terms of vote-count.
“I’m sorry Adam, but the biggest picture right now is to capture the House of Representatives and acquire the subpoena power that comes with it to crack down on President Obama. Nothing right now is more important then that. The ability for a GOP House to check and balance this out-of-control President is the #1 priority”
I don’t disagree with this statement, but if you invite so many Dems into the GOP caucus, how do you guarantee that the crackdown happens. Perhaps you should at least ask Mr. Griffith before assuming he will go along with you.
If we sell our soul to gain the House, then we won’t get a crackdown anyway.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Adam,
“My top priority is that the GOP voters in teh district get to pick their own nominee.”
I agree that the Republicans of AL-5 should pick their own nominee, contra NY-23. At the very least though, the RNC and the RCCC should remain neutral and not do anything to hurt Griffith’s chances. He is pretty much 100% guaranteed to win a general. Whether any of the others can break our 140 year losing streak, I don’t know.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
For the record – shiop jumpers are few and far between. I doubt any others besides Griffith will jump. Building a new GOP majority on the backs of Blue Dog congressmen is both pointless (they will be hostile to major parts of the GOP agenda) and a pipe dream (it’s simply not gonna happen)
The better way to do this is just to beat them fari and square in an election.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Too bad Palin’s supporters do not welcome the new convert in with open arms as she did. That absolutely is the right approach, especially in a district that has been Dem for umpteen dozen years.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“Whether any of the others can break our 140 year losing streak, I don’t know”
They can – that’s why we recruited them and that’s why Griffith jumped. The district was tilting more and more Republican and this election was going to be the tipping point. The only reason the dems held this seat at all is that the last two congressman wer hightly conservative Dems. Griffith clearly is, and his predecessor was often mentioned as a potential party switcher. This is a GOP seat.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“Too bad Palin’s supporters do not welcome the new convert in with open arms as she did. That absolutely is the right approach, especially in a district that has been Dem for umpteen dozen years.”
I already welcomed Griffith. That’s not the argument here. The argument is whether we clear the primary field for him and whether anyone at all has the right to oppose him in primary. Totally different.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
UHHH, in your opening paragraph, you said that Erickson called on him to be defeated. YOu can’t have it both ways.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Sorry, not your opening paragraph…
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Well said Adam, it is amazing that Mr. Washington and Mr. Adams had respect for the democratic process, but a few hundred years later, people do not care. One would think that people would learn from NY-23, but now they want an Alabama-5. If we do not worship the ground that Mr. Griffith walks on, we are narrow minded extreme bigots all of a sudden. Shhhh, let’s let Alabama-5 decide whether or not they want the Blue Dog White guy or not.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Erickson’s words:
“We should now hope him be an extremely endangered Republican in a primary. We will not fix the GOP’s problems if we keep allowing people who are not one of us to suddenly switch the letter next to their name and magically become one of us.”
With welcomes like that we don’t need to kick anyone in the teeth….
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“With welcomes like that we don’t need to kick anyone in the teeth….” Mr. Erickson is one private citizen, nothing more, nothing less.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Exactly right OJ, and that sure as heck isn’t what Erickson did!!!!! Let the voters decide.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Yes, he is a private citizen, and he is what this thread was about. Max rightly called him out for a very stupid move.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
54 – I said that Erickson had the RIGHT to call for his defeat, that doing so is not morally wrong, and that he has justifiable reasons for his opinion.
I am happy about the switchm and I welcome Rep. Griffith, but I see no reason to give him special treatment or whitewash his record in a primary.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
IG, Mr. Erickson is not some gangster that has the power to choose who wins Alabama-5. He gave his opinion as a private citizen and you and I can either agree, disagree or keep quiet, but he is not sabotaging the choice of the voters. Other private citizens are welcome to help the Griffith camp.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“Yes, he is a private citizen, and he is what this thread was about. Max rightly called him out for a very stupid move.”
It is not stupid in that i is entirely consistent with Erickson’s agenda, and aht he thinks is best for the country. In fact, it would have been ridiculously inconsistent for him to support Griffith while opposing Specter and Scozzafava.
and for what it’s worth, we wouldn’t be talking about it if not for the timing. That was actually a pretty smart way to get buzz going. Erickson likes to be first – and he did.
I may not support every last little word in his post, but it was neither stupid nor wrong.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“In fact, it would have been ridiculously inconsistent for him to support Griffith while opposing Specter and Scozzafava.” Wow, while I do not support giving Mr. Griffith a free ride, I’d much prefer Mr. Griffith over Queen Dede, at least politically speaking.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Erickson was dead wrong. Too bad that the only people I see calling for the head of someone who wants to be on our side now are Palin supporters.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Purge Baby Purge!
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
64-
Specter and Scozzafava were opportunistic party jumpers without a clear ideological grounding imposed on the electorate by party elites (and both had viable challengers). Griffith is indeed to their right, but at the moment he is still an opportunistic party jumper without a clear ideological grounding being imposed on the electorate by the party elite (and he has a viable cahllenger).
I hope he turns out well, but at the moment there is no real reason for jubilation if your goal is a GOP with a solid grounding in priciple. I’ll be intrested in seeing how his voting record looks.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“Erickson was dead wrong. Too bad that the only people I see calling for the head of someone who wants to be on our side now are Palin supporters.”
Give it a rest. Palin welcomed him. I’m a Palin guy and I welcomed him. Erickson speaks for himself, not Gov. Palin. That’s not commentary on Gov Palin or Erick Erickson, it’s just a factual statement to show that your statement is disengenous.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“Erickson was dead wrong. Too bad that the only people I see calling for the head of someone who wants to be on our side now are Palin supporters.” Wow, we call for an open and fair primary and we are accused of calling for Mr. Griffith’s head. That pretty much takes the buscuit.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Brickley, I didn’t accuse Palin of wanting Griffith’s head, I accused her supporters. OJ reinforced my claim with his statement in 69. You may have welcomed Griffith, but you also seem supportive of primarying him. Frankly your welcome appears much more as an attempt at plausible deniability should someone accuse you of being a purgist.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
For Pete FREAKING sakes, you just do not get DanL, having a primary does not equal a purge!!! If Mr. Grifith win the primary, he is OUR candidate. If we must let the party gangster choose all our candidates, count me out!!!
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
70 – Ohio makes my point for me here. I did not say we actively need to recruit primary challengers, I noted that there are already two viable candidates in the race for the GOP and that I do NOT support forcing them out. There is already a primary, the question is whether to try and stop it from going forward.
In all honesty – I have no clue who I’d support in said primary. I don’t know enough about Griffith nor do I know enough about his challengers. I would definitely support Griffith in a general elction but that’s not the question here.
This is not a matter of “calling for a primary challenger” or an “off with his head” thing – this is a matter of ensuring those viable candidates in the race are not pushed out for fear of a “divisive primary”.
My take on Griffith is that as of today he gets a clean slate. I thank him for his decision but beyond that I am adopting a wait-and-see approach.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Ohio. yea, sure. You all will run someone third party against him because he’s not ‘conservative’ enough for your blood. Somehow, I doubt you’d support him at all.
Someday, our party won’t be able to walk from all the bulletts we seem to shoot into our own feet.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
70 – I’m not a purgist, I’m a case by case guy who believe that the party should be a big tent but that we should ditch opportunist liberals who realize they get more press by being “rebel republicans” than normal Dems.
I supported Toomey against Specter and Hoffman agaisnt Scozzafava.
However, I’m also a big fan of Joseph Cao – to the point where I suggested elevating him to the Senate – and and admirer of Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins (though I disagree with both of them on many issues). I am also opposed to primarying Senator McCain.
In the case of Griffith, I’m happy to have him but I have no fully formed opinion of him just yet. I will make my decision as to who to support in the primary after looking at all of the candidates positions. I have more questions for Griffith than I would for most people, he has a long way to go before he earns my trust, I feel no OBLIGATION to support his re-election, and I genrally gravitate toward the libertarian/conservative wing of the party in primaries.
But I’m not giving myself “plauible deniability” as a purgist. I’m not saying we should throw Griffith out, I’m saying he should face the voters. If he wins the primary, fine. If he loses, also fine.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
OJ let me make a prediction here. If Palin endorses some other candidate than Griffith in the primary and that candidate loses, then you and everyone else at C4P will be screaming RINO at the top of your lungs at everyone who didn’t endorse Palin’s candidate.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
DanL –
I write for C4P and we have a stict policy. We support Palin endorsees, the whole slate of Palin endorsees, and no one but Palin endorsees.
Nobody – and I do mean NOBODY – gets any support at all from C4P unless they have the official Sarah Palin stamp of approval. Once Palin endorses a candidate, we go all-in behind that candidate regardless of who it is. We are “Conservatives 4 Palin” and hence we take all of our cues from the governmor – period.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I would add that Palin involvement in this race is doubtful.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Griffith supported Dean in 2004, and ran as a Dem in 2008. Sounds like someone doing what it takes to get elected, hardly a beacon of courage of conviction.
What is it about Southern Democrats switching to Republican to aid their election chances? It happens all the time.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Griffith said Dem agenda is reason for his party switch
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73329-blue-dog-dem-griffith-to-switch-parties
VIDEO: Rep. Griffith Switches Parties: Democrats “Do Not Represent My Values”
Griffith said “the differences between the two parties could not be more clear.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/22/rep_griffith_switches_parties_democrats_do_not_represent_my_values.html
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Sarah Palin: ‘Death panels’ may be in final healthcare reform bill
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73371-palin-death-panels-may-be-in-final-health-bill
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Death Panels? Sarah Palin Was Right
By Alan Reynolds
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/22/death-panels-sarah-palin-was-right/
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
“I write for C4P and we have a stict policy. We support Palin endorsees, the whole slate of Palin endorsees, and no one but Palin endorsees.
Nobody – and I do mean NOBODY – gets any support at all from C4P unless they have the official Sarah Palin stamp of approval. Once Palin endorses a candidate, we go all-in behind that candidate regardless of who it is. We are “Conservatives 4 Palin” and hence we take all of our cues from the governmor – period.”
WOW! a bot would be too mild of a word for you people. You sound like ZOMBIES! “I love Sarah!…whatever you say Sarah….whoever you want us to love Sarah, we will love too….oh my baby Sarah, I’m so glad I have you to think for me!”
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
ObamaCare and Mission Creep
Why health care reform will end up covering much more than you think.
by Nick Gillespie, Reason.TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI47xmVkZLM&feature=player_embedded#
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Whatever you think of Erik Erickson, he was absolutely ON TARGET about flippin’ Mitt Romney:
“I think I’m done with the campaign of Willard Mitt Romney. I’m tired of it. His campaign and the potential for his nomination has jumped the shark. No Republican candidate for President has ever more deserved the title “Multiple Choice Mitt.
I’m tired of the explanations and I’m tired of the dodges.
First there was abortion. He was for it, then really for it, then really, really for it, then indifferent to it, and now against it. Some of his supporters and people on his campaign have called Sam Brownback pro-choice. At least Sam has never been multiple choice. And when Sam became pro-life, he actually fought the pro-life fight. I’m not aware of Mitt Romney ever passionately fighting the fight for life. He has, at best, been luke warm — playing it safe, but not actually advocating. And he’s played it so safe, that on stem cell research, he’s been willing to split the baby with parental consent.
…
I’m tired of running into these stories. I’m tired of the hedges. I’m tired of the dodges. And I’m tired of the caveated nuance. So let me put this straight and bluntly. I’m more than happy to support my man Mitt if he is the Republican nominee. But, like Hillary Clinton, he is a political opportunist who I increasingly see as someone without principle, only a weather vane.
Multiple Choice Mitt had me at hello. He lost me on the flip.”
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“OJ let me make a prediction here. If Palin endorses some other candidate than Griffith in the primary and that candidate loses,” I do not give a @#$% who Mrs. Palin endorses, but one thing I do know is that if Mr. Romney endorses candidate X, that candidate is most likely an arrogant elitist RINO who is out of touch with reality. The loose cannon brigade is out in full force and then wonders what the fuss is about.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
You Palin people are going off the deep end. Huck is better than Mitt any day of the week, but to argue that Mitt Romney has not been endorsing and working his tail off for conservatives is way off base, and totally untrue.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Flippin’ Mitt’s been endorsing pro-abortion candidates (Meg Whitman) and Pro gay marriage candidates (Baker in MA) — and he’s been noticeably silent on all the US Senate primary challenges that have been taking place in FL, CO, NH, CA etc.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 pm
75 In otherwords, you walk lockstep behind her? Right off that cliff.
.
.
.
Dang. Rocks.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 am
82 – you take that the wrong way. We all have personal opinions and I certainly spew mine here all the time. The policy only applies to the C4P site – as we have the decency no to put Gov. Palin’s name on anything that she does not expressly support. Heaven knows I back candidates here all the time who do not have Sarah Palin’s express endorsement.