Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bachmann, Schmachmann!
First, Happy 4th to my friend Peter who I greatly respect. But on this, we disagree. Come to think of it, happy 4th to everyone.
Second, a plug for my new “Murphy’s Law” column in TIME. Topic is Michele Bachmann’s impact n the GOP Race. Please don’t send me any angry letters or cardboard Uncle Sam hats. Send them to Rob Long.
My view is this: I think she will have an impact on the race, but I think her odds are being nominated are ziltch, as I told Matt a few months ago. I think her support will crumble with time in the spotlight, and deservedly so. I think her appeal is limited to one part of the primary; real estate Rick Perry may well challenge her for. Finally, I think she would lose a general election in a landslide. Conservatives need to remember that until the country changes what it thinks, nominating a candidate that pleases only conservatives (and only one part of the conservative electorate at that; remember her insane Kucinich vote on Libya?) is always going to be a losing plan. Why ape the Democrats circa 1972 and find a George McGovern?
Finally, if Rush – to his credit a Ricochet reader – wants to tee off again, I want the record to state that I don’t live in DC and care less about cocktail parties there. In fact, the last time I had dinner in a four-star restaurant in Georgetown, it was with Rush Limbaugh! (Some years ago; it was a fun dinner.)
Published in General
Ricochet has never required commentators to provide “empirical evidence of [their] analytical credibility.” What would that be? His grade in Statistics? His college transcripts?
You obviously disagree with his opinion…you’ve…called his credibility (and thus his honor) into question.
Also, there’s a difference between “demonization” and “blasphemy” (for the latter to occur, Mr. Murphy would need to be a deity).
If we must now provide our resume on each post, we’re going to need more words.
Really, TR? His college transcripts? His grade in Statistics? How about simply a disinterested answer to, “why is he considered an expert?” Would that really have been that tough? I think not. He himself answered it succinctly…around Post 90.
And did you really (really?) take my use of “blasphemy” literally? Jeez.
Also, I never called into question his credibility or his honor. I simply asked for evidence of the former.
I don’t disagree with his opinion. I have no take on it yet. And as for your resume comment, you got that wrong, too. Only those proffered as experts should be held to a higher standard than mere members.
I was ordered to write for TIME by my overlords at the KGB. ·Jun 30 at 12:31pm
Do they still have a dental plan?
You’ve completely jacked the thread. Don’t heed his words.
You are exercising the kind of Political Correctness we try to avoid on this site: You pull focus off the words the speaker says, instead focusing on the speaker himself.
That’s what Global Warming enthusiasts do to us. As soon as I ask a question, they call me stupid. Forget my point – they respond by calling me stupid.
By all means please disagree with Mike. I’m disagreeing with him myself.
If I think he is worng, it is because of what he says, not who he is. If I think you are right, it is because of what you say, not who you are.
I’m an attorney and when someone asks me a legal question, I will tell them I’m not right because of who I am, what I read, where I went to school or how many cases I’ve won. I’m right – because I’m right.
If you feel the need to spew venom at someone, that’s what I’m here for. ·Jun 30 at 2:31pm
Now I can die happy. Nice play, Kenneth!
I agree, Dan, but the Delaware thing I think exposed Mike (and Rove) to the criticism that their petulance over Delaware did not help Republicans, and that their narrow-mindedness failed to see the opportunity O’Donnell’s candidacy presented the GOP overall.
I’ve written earlier that O’Donnell’s candidacy may very well have helped elect a more conservative and more GOP Senate than would have happened had Castle gotten the DE GOP nod. I have never seen that argument rebutted.
Instead of seeing the big picture and the opportunity before them, he (and Karl) seemed to be put-off that their “expertise” on DE didn’t carry the day. They couldn’t (or wouldn’t) see the forest for the trees.
THAT is why I might question his credibility as an expert, or as someone without an agenda.
By the way, Mike, I don’t blame you for Meg Whitman’s loss.
It was an uphill battle from the start and Meg was a terrible, terrible candidate – befuddled and undisciplined.
I’ll give you kudos for simply not strangling her.
Dittohead, when you start in on how O’Donnell coulda been a contender, you lose any shred of credibility you might have had.
That’s what Global Warming enthusiasts do to us. As soon as I ask a question, they call me stupid. Forget my point – they respond by calling me stupid.
Um, Tommy…I’ve been called rude, a demonizer, and a few other things. Why? For asking a question. I think you made my point.
Jezum, what’s got in the water today? I never said O’Donnell coulda been a contender. Not even close!! Please, someone, somewhere show me where I even intimated that!
My point was that running O’Donnell helped get Toomey and Kirk elected over two far worse Dems, and got us a Coons who’s probably not much worse than a Castle woulda been, because it redirected Dem dollars from PA and IL to DE. Now, maybe I’m wrong with that assessment (though I’ve never seen it rebutted), but it’s not even close to calling O’Donnell a contender.
Holy cow.
I’m an attorney and when someone asks me a legal question, I will tell them I’m not right because of who I am, what I read, where I went to school or how many cases I’ve won. I’m right – because I’m right.
C’mon, Tommy. Your analogy makes no sense. If someone came to you today and asked you a legal question and you hadn’t read the legal books you’ve read over the years and you hadn’t gone to law school and you hadn’t argued any cases in court…do you really think your answer would be right simply because you asserted it to be so? That you would be organically right?
Of course not. That’s absurd. You’d be right only if you had done all those things yesterday that beget you being right today.
That’s why asking for Mr. Murphy’s credentials (as an analyst) was legitimate. As would be asking for yours (as an attorney). Or mine (as a CPA).
Mike, I’m going to, very respectfully, claim political sea change based on the rising trauma of three years of high unemployment and underemployment, flirting with depression levels, and continuing redefinitions of inflation to avoid the budget busting payouts on federal inflation-adjusted payments (and to roll the underlying issues down the road to someone else’s watch). I expect that at some point in the next decade the economists will review the full data and determine real inflation has swamped any growth we may have enjoyed the last three years.
Scott Brown did not win in a swing state. Wisconsin was a near thing, but after swamping Madison with professional political and union goons from coast to coast for weeks on end, the conservative judge managed to pull it out. Bin Laden died for Obama’s approval rating, and that “surge” only lasted Obama a week.
The mistakes of the Tea Party could have been avoided if the GOP had been true to its small government tradition instead of deciding that runaway government spending should be a reckless bipartisan contest instead of a subversion of good government.
That’s what Global Warming enthusiasts do to us. As soon as I ask a question, they call me stupid. Forget my point – they respond by calling me stupid.
Um, Tommy…I’ve been called rude, a demonizer, and a few other things. Why? For asking a question. I think you made my point. ·Jun 30 at 4:51pm
After asking the question, you were refered to a website with his credentials, and then a follow up by Mike himself with more credentials.
Surely you see that your repeatedly asking the question after that, morphed your sentence from question to accusation.
At that point, it is rude.
If you think he is wrong about this Bachmann topic, tell me why on the merits of his comments on Bachmann. I’m not interested in Meg Whitman’s defeat. It’s a non-sequitur.
Honestly, I can’t take Mike Murphy seriously if he can’t admit that Bachmann wasn’t “confused”. It is a completely phoney argument, and one that Murphy has the ability to understand given his intelligence and experience.
Michele Bachmann Confuses New Hampshire Town with Supersonic Jet!
Last month Bachmann claimed erroneously that Concord, New Hampshire was the site of a famous Revolutionary War battle. It was not. The battle took place in nearby Massachusetts. Bachmann confused the New Hampshire town with the Concorde, a now obsolete super-sonic passenger jet which often flew over the State of New Hampshire.
If Michele Bachmann can’t make the distinction between a town and a jet plane, she has no business running for President.
This is essentially the argument he’s making for the geniuses who read TIME
There is not a single Republican Candidate that is running, and that includes Gov. Perry, that can win in 2012. No one is talking about economic growth.
The fact that the Republican cannot rename Ryan’s Medicare Plan – “No Change to Medicare for those 55 and Over” means they are truly clueless. And, the GOP needs to pound the message: OBAMACARE REDUCES BENEFITS FOR 55 and OVER by almost $1 Trillion.
The other problems are: 49% of the American People pay no income tax and 47% are fine with wealth redistribution. In the EU everybody pays something, so America is a better socialist paradise than the EU. Please remember that FICA was never intended to be used as general revenue, as it was for amny years. That caused our debt to grow even more. Now, the FICA collections are not enough. More Americans today receive a direct payment from government, than pay taxes.
As to the McCain and Bush numbers, in 2008 many more young voters and minorities voted than ever before. If the only way the Republicans can be successful, is for them to obtain super majorities of White voters, then it is over. We need a new party.
Michele Bachmann Confuses New Hampshire Town with Supersonic Jet!
Last month Bachmann claimed erroneously that Concord, New Hampshire was the site of a famous Revolutionary War battle. It was not. The battle took place in nearby Massachusetts. Bachmann confused the New Hampshire town with the Concorde, a now obsolete super-sonic passenger jet which often flew over the State of New Hampshire.
If Michele Bachmann can’t make the distinction between a town and a jet plane, she has no business running for President.
This is essentially the argument he’s making for the geniuses who read TIME ·Jun 30 at 5:20pm
Edited on Jun 30 at 05:25 pm
I see your point.
dittoheadadt
Um, Tommy…I’ve been called rude, a demonizer, and a few other things. Why? For asking a question. I think you made my point. ·Jun 30 at 4:51pm
Surely you see that your repeatedly asking the question after that, morphed your sentence from question to accusation.
At that point it’s rude.
Tommy, the “website” I was referred to was an in-house bio, hardly a disinterested accounting of his political successes and failures, and certainly not something on which to base an opinion about someone’s expertise. If you wanted a fair accounting of Rush’s credentials, would it suffice to go to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com?
And go back and look at the actual timeline of the posts. Mr. Murphy didn’t provide the information you allude to until Post #87 and my very next timely reply (#92) was “Ok, that stuff sounds very good. I didn’t see that kind of detail on the Web, which is why I wanted to get it here.” Where’s the rudeness?
I need a warning the next time Mike posts so I can sell popcorn for the fireworks that are sure to ensue. Several people have hit on the real point of contention here. Mr Murphy tends to be pragmatic about the endgame: winning elections. Moral victories don’t count when your opponent winds up controlling both Houses and steamrolling bills through that no one has read.
I am not unsympathetic to those who feel we need to stick to our principles and support the most conservative candidates, but that strategy hasn’t helped far Left candidates win nationally either. We must be staunch on the principles that matter, but not so doctrinaire that we are inflexible ideologues. We need the RINO squishes (Hi, Rob!) to form a right-leaning, governing majority. Are they going to frustrate us at times? Of course, but better to have them with you 60% of the time than a Democrat against you 80% of the time.
The bar is higher for Conservatives because we start off facing a media culture skewed against us. We need charismatic candidates of substance with executive experience, and there is a dearth of that right now in the GOP field.
I’m still waiting to hear why we should listen to Mike’s arguments in the first place. From where does he derive credibility to offer political analysis? Is it because he’s a <gasp!> “political consultant”…or is there maybe some empirical evidence out there that redounds to his benefit as a political analyst?
Yikes, was this the post for which kiwikit was edited? If so, am a bit dismayed with the editors for deleting personal observations (however hostile), yet allowing members to use the word s**k. I may not have appreciated Kenneth’s commentary on Sarah Palin’s progeny, but only because it brought forth an unpleasant image. (And that is my problem).
Personal attacks may create some discomfort, but 4-letter words, on the other hand, are just plain tacky.
Mike,
Granted the demographic changes aren’t helpful to Republicans.(E.g: When recommending Repubs to a Mexican immigrant at my job, he asked if I had health insurance; i.e. he did not and was therefore for Obama and the Dems.)
That said, given Obama’s poor performance, especially on the ecocomy, and a vigorous effort by Repubs pointing it out while offering a credible plan to provide a basis for hope of a better future, wouldn’t a successful, disciplined conservative have a good shot, like Reagan in 1980. And if so, wouldn’t a Rick Perry or perhaps T. Pawlnty, if they decide to run, best fill those requirements. Granted, Chris Christie has good leadership skils but seems to be set on not running. So, long story short, shouldn’t we look for a conservative with a good track record and the ability to run a disciplined campaign as an alternative to Romney.
Oh and Dittohead, please, please give it a rest.
I agree. I am just saying that Castle really puts the In Name Only into RINO. I think you have to provide some semblance of a conservative position somewhere to be able to pull the “I’m the electable one card”. I also don’t think it is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You have to be willing to lose races to keep the incumbents honest.
And I would argue that Mr. Murphy got the “endgame” wrong with regard to Delaware’s impact on the Senate GOP, which error reflects in part (and not favorably) on his expertise as a political analyst, and his reaction to which suggests he may be somewhat agenda-driven in his analyses. (Is it rude or illegitimate to suggest that, inasmuch as we’re debating his Bachmann analysis?)
To clarify for those who need it, I’m not saying O’Donnell could’ve beaten Coons.
If his endgame is winning elections, can he (or anyone) credibly dispute the notion that O’Donnell’s hopeless candidacy may have helped usher in a more conservative and more GOP Senate than would otherwise have happened? Isn’t Toomey/Kirk/Coons better than Sestak/Giannoulias/Castle?
I’m sorry but this whole idea that O’Donnell running somehow helped us in other states smacks of spin and sour grapes from the crowd who was proven demonstrably wrong about her chances of winning. Making her some sort of sacrificial lamb that pulled funding from other races overstates the chances she was ever credibly given of winning, and it sells short those candidates who DID win like Toomey, et al, because they were strong candidates who appealed to their constituents. They won because they were strong candidates; she lost because she was a weak candidate. That race cost us a seat plain and simple. Let’s learn from our failures and not repeat them.
Oh and Dittohead, please, please give it a rest. ·Jun 30 at 5:53pm
I think Mr. Murphy got the big picture wrong with regard to the effect O’Donnell’s candidacy had on the Senate GOP in 2010 (and with She Who Must Not Be Named, in early September 2008, when he disparaged her on MSNBC a few days before her addition to the McCain ticket propelled McCain ahead of Obama in the polls for the first time), and this all leads me to question his analysis with regard to Michele Bachmann.
Can I say any of that?
There’s little substance to your argument, Sam. She did pull Dem funding from other states. It’s a fact that the Dems spent more money in Delaware than they otherwise would have, when they realized they could win the seat. That kept money out of other races, like IL and PA, where the two GOP candidates barely won (Toomey 51/49, Kirk 48/46). BTW, Toomey, the “strong candidate,” actually trailed Sestak by 3 points on Oct. 20. His and Kirk’s wins were not foregone conclusions by any stretch.
Candidate Obama mixed up Sioux Falls with Sioux City, and referred to an asthmatic’s inhaler as a “breathalyzer” and an “inhalator”, thought he had visited 57 states, and claimed we had a shortage of Arabic translators in Afghanistan, where few speak Arabic.
He also said that a single tornado in Kansas had claimed 10,000 fatalities, a preposterous figure which would have made it 14 times more deadly than the deadliest tornado on record, as well as the largest natural disaster in American history.
Don’t put too much emphasis on gaffes. Either that, or the way the media covers them gaffes only count against Republicans.
Ditto, you don’t know what the baseline for spending in that campaign would have been with Castle running, and you don’t know where else that money would have been spent instead. It’s pure conjecture. Maybe that money goes to WV which we lost anyway. You’re cherry-picking two races to support the axe you’re intent on grinding against Murphy’s credibility. Is he supposed to provide a curriculum vitae every time he posts here in case someone else doesn’t know who he is or why he has credibility? He was invited to post as a contributor which shows he has credibility with the people who run this site. You can find out his qualifications by spending five minutes doing a Google search.
One final word on all this, then I’m off on vacation. My point is that the history of politics in the last five decades does give insight into who can and cannot win national elections. During the last election, we had a fun rumpus on this site about Christine “The Broom” O’Donnell in DE. My point was that when the primary base gets excited and elects a candidate all about their dogma and not the bigger electorate, we lose. See: McGovern, George. Posts poured in saying why I was wrong, why consultants who do this professionally are dumb, why we win by losing, why we are in a new era of politics with new rules. Then she lost big. We also made the same mistake in Nevada and some would say CO. Now we have to negotiate the budget and taxes with Harry Reid instead of Mitch McConnell. That is a conservative fiasco, not a victory. Now, here we are again. I might be wrong. Been wrong before. But I doubt it on this one. Michele Bachmann is a stone cold loser in a general election. Prob in primary too. Happy 4th!