Comments on: Selective Outrage

By: BarryD

BarryD — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:47:38 +0000

Yes, Norwegian Shooter.

The GOP senate has mained incredible discipline in the past few years; expecting a new GOP senator to buck the entire rest of his caucus is expecting a lot. [and note - yes, the Democratic caucus works differently]

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:52:30 +0000

Brown is not likely to vote to the left of Specter in the US Senate, no matter what he did the rest of his life. He now is part of the Republican Senate caucus and someone who needs to amass a lot of campaign contributions between now and his re-election. He is much more likely to vote the party line than show his true colors. Plus, he’s pro-choice. Anything else unorthodox would simply explode the brains of establishment Republicans and conservatives.

By: Glaivester1

Glaivester1 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:55:57 +0000

As I mentioned earlier, the selective outrage that targets the less liberal Specter and Crist with serious primary challenges but leaves the more liberal Brown unscathed depends entirely on the degree to which the moderate Republican opposes or embraces Obama’s agenda.

In the short term, if one feels that Obama’s agenda is the most urgent threat, to do so makes sense.

Besides, as others have pointed out, the GOP has taken Ted Kennedy’s seat. That’s a coup in and of itself.

The GOP has an interest in getting out liberal GOPers when it has a chance of getting more conservative GOPers in, and in promoting liberal GOPers when they have no other options.

By: David Tomlin

David Tomlin — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:54:17 +0000

Honestly, I don’t know who I would have chosen last Tuesday had I been a Massachusetts voter. The thought of voting for a supporter of waterboarding revolts me, but so does the thought of voting for an enabler of the Great Child Abuse Hysteria. Probably I would have called a wash on civil liberties and voted for Brown, because thwarting Obama’s economic agenda is the most pressing priority. I don’t think that’s irrational, inconsistent, or ‘arbitrary’.

Btw I voted for Obama, for reasons of foreign policy and civil liberties. Also after Palin I didn’t much trust McCain’s judgment on anything, and I had a slim hope Obama would turn out to be as fiscally conservative as President Clinton was.

By: Bill C

Bill C — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:53:16 +0000

Isn’t as simple as Brown was the only one that could win in Mass? That a Republican took over the seat of the most lauded liberal in half a century? That his win derails the biggest liberal project in decades?

Also there was no other opportunity to vote for the more conservative candidate whereas there is with Crist can be challenged from the right and a conservative can win in Florida. Same goes for Toomey/Specter in PA.

Look I’m a Ron Paul Republican and I’m pretty happy about this unexpected surprise even though he’d be terrible on my issues anywhere outside of the northeast. I think even conservative ideologues can be consistent in cheering on a Brown win in Kennedy’s old seat especially since if derails the biggest intervention in the economy in recent memory.

Conservatives can think and act strategically too.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:56:23 +0000

Yes, they are, and that’s just about all they will be at the rate they’re going. The point I was trying to make here is that what counts as an unacceptable deviation from the party line is completely arbitrary. Crist is far, far to the right of Brown, but his deviation on the stimulus made him persona non grata while Brown’s numerous deviations are not really held against him. Given his new status as conservative folk hero, they may not be held against him for some time. Crist is probably opposed to Obama’s position on many more things, but he is regarded far more negatively than Brown and he is the one being targeted with a primary challenge.

By: David Tomlin

David Tomlin — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:01:32 +0000

Wow. It’s almost as if the Republicans were an opposition party.