Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Who's feeling their ideological oats now?

Conservatives are constantly castigated about our desire to primary severe partisan defectors like Linc Chafee and Arlen Specter. But those guys have committed a list of political sins as long as my arm.

NY Democrats on the other hand, don't like Sen. Gillibrand's position on guns, and Rep. McCarthy is looking at a primary challenge.

Aside from the gun issue (where I'm sure she will find true religion when the votes come up, just as Casey has on abortion), it seems Gillibrand's biggest problem is that her first name isn't Carolyn or Caroline.

Gillibrand has the opportunity to hold that Senate seat forever and a day and bring a lot of power to New York, and certain Democrats are going to try to muck that up over small potatoes.

Who is the exclusive, petty, ideological party now?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, Joe, but I don't understand the first sentence in this post. Is there a verb missing?

~MJA

Anonymous said...

Hey Joe - unrelated question - what implications - if any - (short and long term) do you anticipate for Palin's back-taxes on her per diem?
Matt

Sockless Joe said...

"to primary" is a verb in political parlance. As in, "We really need to primary Arlen Specter." I think that's what you're getting at.

I just now saw the Palin headline... checking it out.

If it's a straightforward "didn't pay her taxes" like an Obama appointee, that's one more thing going against her if she decides to run for something else. I've been against her running for Prez in 2012, but that was even before this tax bit.

I'd sort of like to see her be Gov for a while and look at running against Begich for Senate in 6 years. Or, ideally, serving in a future Repub administration as Sec. of Interior. She wants areas open to drilling, but she wants the oil cos to pay for it (no give-aways).

Anonymous said...

Oh okay, now it makes sense. I thought maybe 'severe' was 'sever' or 'primary' was meant to be 'primarily' with a couple other changes. Thank you, Joe.

~MJA

Anonymous said...

Hey Joe -
What are "urban-suburban hip-hop settings"?

Matt

Sockless Joe said...

That's a good question. Maybe I'll find out at CPAC next week.

I am cautiously optimistic on Steele. I think there might have been one or two other choices for RNC chair that might have worked, but the last ballot (between a black guy and a guy who had belonged to a racially exclusive country club) was a no-brainer to me.

Some of what I like about Steele is that he's forthright about how R's squandered public trust, and he's willing to totally re-write the play book and fire all the dead weight.

Sockless Joe said...

This pretty much works for me on the Palin tax issue. Not to absolve her on the issue... but all things considered...

Samay said...

The main difference is that both parties are setting up primary fights in Blue states.

If the solid conservatives ran a primary candidate against a moderate in a solidly conservative state, like they should have against Elizabeth Dole, that would make sense, and that's what this democratic fight in NY, and the Lamont campaign in CT were about.

The problem is that running a hard-right candidate in a liberal state doesn't make sense. It would be like the Democrats running a far-left candidate against Ben Nelson. But hey, if y'all want to run campaigns that make no sense, I'm okay with that.