There’s been quite the discussion going on in the Comments section of a post published by Jeff Goldstein on Thursday on the ‘vitory’ of Thad Cochran in the Run-Off Primary held this past Tuesday in Mississippi.
Dana Pico, a frequent commentator over at The Other McCain and proprietor of The First Street Journal, had been the subject of much deserved wrath from the PW regulars for, what I describe as his Loyalist sentiments in regards to the GOP, and this had brought out the best in a group that is always insightful and very entertaining — I learn a lot hanging around over there.
I would encourage you to take the time to read the full set of comments — even Dana’s because his way of thinking shows just what we’re up against when it comes to people on the Right who refuse to understand the Reality of our situation.
Here’s a sample of Dana’s thinking:
Thank you, sir. May I have another.
Senator Cochran played hardball, and he won. If Mr McDaniel challenges the legality of the result, the only thing that he can do is to help the Democratic nominee. It’s time for Mr McDaniel to man up, and not be a stinking crybaby.
[Jeff's response to this sentiment was classic Goldstein (and spot-on): 'Answer this one question: if it meant the GOP took control of the Senate, would you let Haley Barbour bang you in the ass? If not, why not?']
A few highlights from the PW Gang…
-From one of Dicentra’s responses to Dana:
Here are some of Dana’s other erroneous assumptions:
1) He thinks our fury is over the fact we lost, not over the fact that the Establicans violated every principle of decency imaginable. We’re disappointed that Lindsay Graham won, for example, but we’re not “throwing a hissy fit” over that. Notice? When we lose fair and square, we react with disappointment, not righteous indignation.
IOW, we’re not pissed that we lost to “tougher players”; we’re pissed that the other team won by chloroforming the QB on the sly.
Principled people freak out over treachery, not over being beaten fair & square. Why don’t you know that?
2) Dana assumes that Cruz is powerless because he’s in the minority & hasn’t been there long. Dana doesn’t seem to understand that the fastest way to become “hated” or unpopular in DC is to not be a team player. Do you know what being a team player in DC means, Dana? It means being on the take. It means allowing yourself to be co-opted so that you won’t rat out the others who are gorging themselves at the public trough.
Cruz & Lee are hated because they are honest men in the presence of sycophantic crapweasels.
3) Dana doesn’t realize that principled people don’t take kindly to double standards. The Establicans were so loath to accept McDaniels as a colleage — EVEN THOUGH HE’S A PERFECTLY GOOD REPUBLICAN — that they suborned voter fraud to curb-stomp him. As others have enumerated, when Establicans lose a primary, they don’t gracefully accept defeat — they fight it.
Have you heard, Dana, that Hatch is going to move heaven and earth to get rid of Mike Lee? Why is that, do you suppose? Is Lee not voting properly? Why isn’t Hatch OK with Any Red Butt in that seat?
Perhaps you can explain why we’re enjoined by all the “pragmatists” to gracefully accept defeat, but they themselves do no such thing. Can you explain why we should be OK with that?
4) The worst of Dana’s assumptions is that winning back the Senate will thwart Obama’s agenda. Are you really that inattentive, Dana? Do you see the GOP attempting to derail Obama’s agenda even at a rhetorical level? Boehner has all kinds of arrows in his quivver to push back against Obama’s lawlessness, but instead of using even one — or merely threatening to — he concocts this bullshit lawsuit.
I’ma repeat that Sean Trende observation that Pablo posted earlier, and I want Dana to read it VERY CAREFULLY:
And what do Republicans have to show for [putting Republicans in power]? Temporary tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, a new Cabinet department, increased federal spending, TARP, and repeated attempts at immigration reform. Basically, despite a historic opportunity to shrink government, almost everything that the GOP establishment achieved during that time moved the needle leftward on domestic policy. Probably the only unambiguous win for conservatives were the Roberts and Alito appointments to the Supreme Court; the former is viewed with suspicion today while the latter only came about after the base revolted against Harriet Miers.
Dana, would you mind explaining to me why you want more of this and worse? Is it OK with you that a goodly portion of us refuse to call this shit sandwich “half a loaf”?
You can certainly call the abolitionists “purists” given their uncompromising position, but they also happened to be 100% right. Sometimes you’re not dealing with half a loaf but half a BABY. Other times a compromise consists of building a bridge halfway across a river — each party got half of what it wanted but the result is worse than useless.
I really don’t understand people who cling to their normalcy bias like grim death. What gives with not being able to adapt to changing reality? Why can’t you see that the GOP doesn’t even TRY to move the country rightward anymore?
IT’S NOT 1993, YA FOOL! WAKE THE HELL UP!
Or get out of our way. Don’t make me no never mind.
-Drumwaster responding to a point made by Dana:
[Dana:] Those were the rules, whether you like them or not, and Chris McDaniel decided to enter the race, knowing those rules
And Cochran chose to violate those rules (not to mention the felonious activity by his staffers), and you think he should be rewarded for those violations because “we don’t want the Dems to run the Senate”.
-Lawrence responding to the Loyalist:
Dana, you’re defending the behavior of Cochran’s campaign only in vague generalities.
You sneer about “Throwing a hissy fit because Thad Cochran and Mitch McConnell defeated two TEA Party challengers,” but you damn well know that the objection isn’t primarily THAT the incumbent Cochran successfully beat a primary challenge, but HOW he did so.
“In the end, Chris McDaniel could not persuade a majority of the voters to vote for him, and he lost.”
He persuaded a majority of REPUBLICANS in the REPUBLICAN primary runoff, and you’re trying (and failing) to obscure the fact that Cochran’s campaign reached out to Dems and did so BOTH by smearing conservatives as racist AND by smearing conservatism as cruel.
It’s funny: you’re trying to defend the indefensible, but you can’t even bring yourself to describe it honestly.
“If Mr McDaniel takes the high road, concedes, and tries to help Senator Cochran, we’ll still have the Mississippi Senate seat; if y’all get your way, and Mr McDaniel tries to muddy this up and fight and fight, you just might see that Senate seat go to the Democrat.”
Why the hell should any of us take that “high road” after this, especially when you’re praising Cochran’s hardball tactics? There’s nothing particularly noble about enabling the party leadership’s slander of us and our ideals: that’s no high road, it’s a road to serfdom.
Just as the Loyalists in the years leading up to July of 1776 would have, through their naivete, lead us into being enslaved by George III and Parliament, so would Dana have us accept the present situation.
This is not a game.
