RALLY REPORT - Kaloogian and Tancredo ROCK Republican Convention in California!

Howard Kaloogian for U.S. Senate ^ | 02/22/2004 | Me

[Poohbah]

Spoken like a true Rino who is not the brightest bulb in the box.

Actually, you're the "Rino." You reject a candidate you agree with 50% in favor of electing a candidate you disagree with 100%. You reject the GOP unless it conforms perfectly to your wishes.

You reserve the right to walk out and not support the GOP when the nominee isn't to your liking--to the point, I guess, of using GOP walking-around money to derail a GOP candidate you dislike--yet demand complete fealty from those Republicans who MIGHT disagree with you (or dislike your habit of vile personal attacks) if your candidate happens to win the primary.

Loyalty is a two-way street. You are unwilling--or unable--to show any loyalty outward from yourself, yet demand absolute loyalty inward to yourself. It is a sign of a profound spirtual sickness. I am profoundly grateful that you did not serve in the USMC: you might have decided to not cover the flank of the man next to you if he was a less-than-pure conservative like you.

If Kaloogian wins, I'm going to work extremely hard to get him elected. That's what's known as "loyalty." Call me a "Rino" all you wish, if that will make you feel morally superior to me.

But you will, if your candidate doesn't win, simply pick up a knife and give everyone else a stab in the back.

Whine about Ed Zschau having been a RINO all you want. Senator Zschau would have voted to confirm Robert Bork as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1987. We might not have gotten David Souter on the court had Bork not been successfully Borked. But you and your ilk decided that Alan Cranston would be the one to cast that vote, and he voted to not confirm Bork.

You, sir, are the RINO.

[Sabertooth]

Then you have no claim on the GOP whatsoever, and no claim to being part of the "base." A wise GOP strategist would simply discount your vote at the outset, because you are unreliable.

Assuming someone is not considered part of the base, do you really believe the rest of this above?

By the political strategist's calculus, Bush has been extremely stupid, giving conservatives much of what they want even after they backstabbed him in 2000. Time will tell if the "My way or f***ing else" conservatives respond positively to Bush's outreach--or if they will remain true to form.

What percentage of conservatives "backstabbed" Bush in 2000?

What were the gross numbers of conservatives voted for Bush, and didn't?

[Poohbah]

What percentage of conservatives "backstabbed" Bush in 2000?

4,000,000 no-show conservatives relative to 1996--newsflash kids, BOB DOLE got more conservative votes than Bush ever did--translates to about a 4% shift in the popular vote, and about 9-10% of the total conservative vote.

When I was a Marine, we always spoke of "The 10% who screw up a good deal for everybody else."

Bush managed to win in spite of our 10%. Now, the 10% want to give Boxer a third term--and screw it up for everybody else.

[Sabertooth]

4,000,000 no-show conservatives relative to 1996--newsflash kids, BOB DOLE got more conservative votes than Bush ever did--translates to about a 4% shift in the popular vote, and about 9-10% of the total conservative vote.

So, 4 million would be 10% of 40 million, right?

If 90% of the 40 million conservatives voted for Bush, that's about 36 million votes, by my math. Agreed?

Also, do you really hold that a "wise GOP strategist would simply discount (a non-base) vote at the outset, because (it is) unreliable?"

[Poohbah]

Also, do you really hold that a "wise GOP strategist would simply discount (a non-base) vote at the outset, because (it is) unreliable?"

A wise campaign manager would treat any such votes that his candidate did manage to get as a bonus, and not plan on winning an election with them.

Here's the issue: those "RINOs" you complain about actually vote, and do so on a consistent basis.

Conservatives are accurately seen as being less likely to vote, or to vote Republican, than "RINOs."

Satisfying the last 10% of the self-proclaimed base would probably cost at least 10% of the popular vote--in other words, the GOP candidate would lose roughly 2.5 votes for each vote gained.

You want to get your way more often? Generate votes, and do so reliably. Get the GOP candidate to owe you favors. You want to occasionally throw an election to a radical leftist Democrat? Keep doing as you've been doing. But don't expect the GOP to continuously prostrate themselves before you and beg the favor of your vote. They will find other people to vote for them.

As I've pointed out, I'm not in the business of building coalitions of the unwilling. Having been slow-rolled and back-stabbed by the self-proclaimed "true conservatives" one time too many, I refuse to trust anyone who regards loyalty to others as optional.

And yes, Saber, I am talking about you in the above paragraph.

[Sabertooth]

A wise campaign manager would treat any such votes that his candidate did manage to get as a bonus, and not plan on winning an election with them.

Seems to me as long as I've been watching elections that campaign strategists spend a fair amount of time appealing to swing voters, which are unreliable by definition.

Here's the issue: those "RINOs" you complain about actually vote, and do so on a consistent basis.

You just said, if I understand the math of your numbers correctly, that 36 million conservatives voted for Bush in 2000, out of a total of 50,456,002.

So, the 4 million no shows notwithstanding, more than 70% of Bush's base are conservatives. Yet you said at #359, "by the political strategist's calculus, Bush has been extremely stupid, giving conservatives much of what they want even after they backstabbed him in 2000."

How can you say that "Bush has been extremely stupid" to tend to the conservatives in the GOP coalition, which make up 70% of his base?

Marine slogans are nice, but do you really think it would be wise to ignore those 36 million loyal conservatives just to stick it to the 4 million no shows, who are winnable in any case?

Satisfying the last 10% of the self-proclaimed base would probably cost at least 10% of the popular vote--in other words, the GOP candidate would lose roughly 2.5 votes for each vote gained.

Source? Link?

You want to get your way more often? Generate votes, and do so reliably.

70% of the base is "unreliable?"

You want to occasionally throw an election to a radical leftist Democrat? Keep doing as you've been doing.

Voting for Republicans?

But don't expect the GOP to continuously prostrate themselves before you and beg the favor of your vote. They will find other people to vote for them.

Sounds like you're saying "my way or f***ing else."

Nahhh... being an American, I reserve the right to criticize my political "betters." Also, I don't honestly think that political strategists are as quick as you'd like them to be to throw away votes that are theirs to lose.

As I've pointed out, I'm not in the business of building coalitions of the unwilling. Having been slow-rolled and back-stabbed by the self-proclaimed "true conservatives" one time too many, I refuse to trust anyone who regards loyalty to others as optional.

And yes, Saber, I am talking about you in the above paragraph.

I'll probably get over it. Don't know if hchutch will.

I'm much the same way, btw. I don't trust politicians who are disloyal to what I believe are in the best interests of the country, or who think loyalty is a one way street.

[hchutch]

Seeing as I consider John Warner to be one of those "my way or f***ing else types" who DID backstab someone he did not agree with - I don't think Poohbah has much to worry about.

[Sabertooth]

Seeing as I consider John Warner to be one of those "my way or f***ing else types" who DID backstab someone he did not agree with - I don't think Poohbah has much to worry about.

Yeah, it's different when you do it.

Funny thing, though... you apparently value loyalty to party above all other loyalties.

While I also value loyalty to party, and have practiced it at the ballot box more than you have, it is not my supreme loyalty.

[FairOpinion]

"Actually, you're the "Rino." You reject a candidate you agree with 50% in favor of electing a candidate you disagree with 100%."

====

Your entire post is 100% accurate, you told them, like it is.

These "unapeasables" are correctly termed "useful idiots" for the Democrats, because that's whom they help, when you look at the bottom line.

[tame]

Poohpooh, You might want to save your empty R.I.N.O. rhetoric for someone who'se gullable enough to fall for it. That would not be me. GOOOOOO KALOOGIAN!

[tame]

Your entire post is 100% accurate, you told them, like it is.

Spoken like another true Rino.