Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Atrios and projection (update)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, March 13, 2007

In a remark about conservatives:
The conservative coalition is an odd one, but what seems to be new is that "serious" conservative candidates need to buy into the whole agenda in order to please movement conservatives. This is odd, as I think plenty of movement conservatives don't really agree with the whole package. Aside from their anti-tax fetish, which seems to be universal, there are conservatives who don't have Tancredo's views on immigration, don't buy into the "hate the gay" or general social conservatism agenda fully, at least now recognize that the Iraq war was perhaps a bad idea, think there might be something to this global warming stuff, etc... Still, they seem to want their candidates to support the whole package, even the parts they don't necessarily care anything about. It's about demonstrating their fealty to the movement, and proving they're sincere in their desire to f*ck with liberals. It's kinda weird.
Two words: Joe Lieberman.

Heck, one word: Iraq

Seriously, can you be this blind to what's going on in your own back yard?

UPDATE: An example of what I'm talking about. Note the title and ponder the connotation.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
It’s Atrios for God’s sake. He’s not exactly brimming with intellectual curiousity and integrity.
 
Written By: Grandersnack
URL: http://
Jesus, "Mote...Brother’s eye...BEAM...our own eye" alternatively, "Mr Pot meet Mr. Kettle."

Actually this guy is a conservative or a comedian, right, he’s out setting the ball close to the net for the next guy to spike it, right?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
He writes whatever party-line the Townhouse email soviet tells him to write.
 
Written By: T
URL: http://
McQ,

You seem to be missing Atrios’ point. Wanting a candidate to agree with you about one issue—the most important issue of the day—is hardly the same thing as demanding "fealty to the movement." Moreover, there’s a difference between demanding that someone endorse the party-line position on all issues and demanding that someone have the best interests of the party in mind, regardless of their beliefs on discreet issues. If you look at the actual candidates the "netroots" supported in 2006, though, you’ll see they differ with the established democratic position on a whole host of issues. People like Tester and Webb have idiosynchratic beliefs. But they were still enthusiastically supported by Atrios and company, even at the primary stage when they were up against the candidate hand-picked by the party establishment.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
But they were still enthusiastically supported by Atrios and company, even at the primary stage when they were up against the candidate hand-picked by the party establishment.
And how would you contrast that with Guiliani being the leading republican presidential candidate?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
...If you look at the actual candidates the "netroots" supported in 2006, though, you’ll see they differ with the established democratic position on a whole host of issues....
They all have one thing in common: they opposed anything and everything that has to do with the War in Iraq, including the potential for the U.S. to win it. Hence McQ’s succinct observation: "Iraq".

For a rather concrete example of this large beam, see Lieberman, Joe.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Wanting a candidate to agree with you about one issue—the most important issue of the day—is hardly the same thing as demanding "fealty to the movement."
Obviously Firedog Lake and MyDD would disagree.

They most certainly demanded feality to the movement (as they defined it) and that was the primary reason they called for Joe Lieberman, a 95% liberal, to be booted from the party.

Now I don’t know where you were when all of that went on, but I remember it quite well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I understand the projection angle, but something else that really leaps out of Atrios’s musing there is his apparent total blindness to concerns about electability. He doesn’t consider that a given conservative might back candidates supporting a "whole conservative package" expressly because he wants to support someone who can energize the broad conservative base and attract enough votes to get elected.

Actually, I guess that’s just more projection. Of Atrios’s own obvious cluelessness about politics.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Still, they seem to want their candidates to support the whole package, even the parts they don’t necessarily care anything about.
This seems to be a description of the present Democratic party not Republicans. The Dems tossed Lieberman overboard because of his support of the war in Iraq. However Conservatism is losing it’s grip on reality. They have become as “statist” as Liberals. The right wants it’s nose in your bedroom, the left in your wallet. This dogmatism is a good reason to abandon the ossified philosophy of Conservatism, and move to the more dynamic and reasonable philosophy of Neoliberalism.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Now I don’t know where you were when all of that went on, but I remember it quite well.
Well, McQ, THEY certainly don’t and will EVER remember it that way. It is certainly part of the reason why debate is pretty much pointless. But one can hope.

;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Obviously Firedog Lake and MyDD would disagree.

They most certainly demanded feality to the movement (as they defined it) and that was the primary reason they called for Joe Lieberman, a 95% liberal, to be booted from the party.

Now I don’t know where you were when all of that went on, but I remember it quite well.


Or look at the way the nutroots demands John Edwards dance to their tune or face the specter of IMPORTANT ACTION ALERTS
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
there are conservatives who don’t have Tancredo’s views on immigration, don’t buy into the "hate the gay" or general social conservatism agenda fully ...

Now wait just one durn minute. This would only be possible if conservatives aren’t all rethuglican sheeple marching in brainless ideological lockstep. And we all know none have escaped the fearsome power of Darth Rove’s dreaded satellite-mounted mind control ray.

 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
I have to doubt that orthodoxy is so demanded from the right considering the front runner is Giuliani.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
I have to doubt that orthodoxy is so demanded from the right considering the front runner is Giuliani


It’s a long time between now and the election, there may be many a slip between the lip and the rim of the cup. You can not make a prediction this early. Things will change between now and when we cast our vote. Anything can happen, so we don’t know course of the next two years. Who knows who the President will be 1n 2008

What happens now will be forgotten by the time of the general election. What we have now between the two parties is light jabbing, irrelevant in the long run.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
‘Twould have been nice if I’d done it before, but in any case since I made my earlier comment I’ve thought about conservatives and their demands of candidates. On reflection, I just don’t see what Atrios sees; that is, I don’t see a trend among coalition or movement conservatives to require “their candidates to support the whole package, even the parts they don’t necessarily care anything about.” On the contrary, the only persons demanding such from their candidates are precisely those who do care very much about every little part and participle of the whole conservative package. Clearly, someone for whom immigration is the big issue and who backs a candidate promising increased border control is not going to acid-test that candidate on abortion or global-warming if he’s unconcerned about those matters. And, as we know, someone pushing for social conservatism isn’t necessarily going to demand of his candidate fiscal conservatism. While of course those demanding fiscal conservatism – well, they’re just sol no matter what, but the point is no one’s making demands of any sort regarding matters about which they are unconcerned.

And to the extent that someone wishes to back the most electable among suitable candidates, his tendency will likely be to favor the more centrist rather than the more conservative person running. My earlier comment was wrong on that count. At least, it wouldn’t be very effective to favor a candidate who is conservative across the board if electability were one’s foremost concern. Giuliani’s present lead, however temporary, does suggest that “the broad conservative base” to which I referred previously is not a factor pushing candidates to the fore nationally. And kyleN is right that it argues against conservative orthodoxy.

So, a lot of verbiage to hash out the obvious and unimportant, but at least I got it out of my system.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Parenthetically, one might use Ms. Morgan’s comment above to illustrate the difference between sheeple lefties and the right. She not only argues with herself, she loses that argument. Contrast that to the leftie commenters here. The left does not reason from basic principles to the solution; quite the opposite.
If one believes them, the left has the fairest, best and most acceptable solution to every problem. Of course, that is because it was crafted to be just that. The right struggles with applying their principles to effect a solution. If a handy solution violates one or more principles: keep looking. The left? Hey, principles are for the 4th of July (or should I say the 5th of May?). Adopt the solution, then add whatever principles are needed to give it credibility. Yeah, but where do you get the pat solution? Why from the NYT. Yeah, but where do THEY get it? From the Democratic think tanks. Yeah, but wh… If we could answer that accurately, we would know a lot about American politics nowadays, wouldn’t we?
Want to see why the left model is a disaster? Look at education. (1)
“To measure, we must test. (*) Yes, but testing takes so much time away from learning and it distorts the whole process. So let’s not test. (*) Yes, but how else to measure? Hmmmm. (*) OK, we’ll test, but in a different way. (*) That doesn’t work. (*) OK, back to square one.”
What are the (*)? Why all-weekend meetings as seaside resorts to discuss things, increased sabbaticals to learn about the new changes, increasing tenure needed to cope with change, increased salaries because of the need for constant change, etc.
In other words, get the taxpayers to support your lifestyle, then dazzle them with your brilliant proposed solutions (forget whether or not this process has worked in the past) and NEVER be trapped by any demand for consistency. Sheeple will accept that “fairness” is a workable base principle comparable to the principles of the right. What, politicians are forbidden to take advantage of their stupidity? Since you can endlessly move the goalposts in order to achieve whatever today’s concept of “fairness” is, the process becomes the reality. Welcome to modern leftism.

(1) I don’t know anything about education other than being a victim. However, lay persons have always been free to discuss it and I need something that illustrates the perfidy of leftist politics and education serves quite well.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider