Two good editorials on this weekend's Venezuelan elections from The Washington Post and The Miami Herald

How Pat Toomey Became the Face of the Blue State GOP

It's hard to imagine an article written to more directly hit my sweet spots. Steadfast fiscal conservatism while changing in substance and tone on cultural issues in blue states to try and win back the suburbs.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:They don't actually want to win the election--they make more money being in the opposition. The problem during the Bush years is that the lobbyists and such didn't get paid so much, because industry and the wealthy knew Bush would give them what they want without having to lobby.

Do you really believe this? Isn't the simplest answer, that in order to win the general election one must win the primary, the most reasonable? It doesn't require a tin foil hat, too.

your simple answer isn't necessarily at odds with TV's larger-scope analysis. It's a little like particle & wave theories in physics. For instance, your "reasonable" explanation for what goes on at the local level isn't necessarily in conflict for how the game is played at the national level.

jerseyhoya wrote:How Pat Toomey Became the Face of the Blue State GOP

It's hard to imagine an article written to more directly hit my sweet spots. Steadfast fiscal conservatism while changing in substance and tone on cultural issues in blue states to try and win back the suburbs.

The comments alone are worth it

apparently "emphasis & tone" will be 2016's "shock & awe"

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:How Pat Toomey Became the Face of the Blue State GOP

It's hard to imagine an article written to more directly hit my sweet spots. Steadfast fiscal conservatism while changing in substance and tone on cultural issues in blue states to try and win back the suburbs.

The comments alone are worth it

apparently "emphasis & tone" will be 2016's "shock & awe"

Toomey circa 2013 pretty much as good as it gets for Beltway Republicans--which, geography aside, is a good descriptor of jerseyhoya. Until he does something like come out for marriage equality, I'll believe he's more indifferent than opposed to the Santorum crowd; he'll probably keep voting with them, but he's too savvy to make idiotic statements of the sort that Frothy unleashed every week or so. He's been very, very clever in putting himself forward as a dance partner for some of the more right-leaning Democrats on a handful of issues; it gives him the appearance of moderation without the substance of it (the proposed gun control probably will make things worse on balance). The bar is that low now in terms of congressional collegiality.

That said, my guess is that he's going to have a problem in 2016. Because he's not a hate-addled psycho on social issues, he'll probably face a challenge from the right. Maybe he'll be able to drown that guy in money and get to the general without having to tack far right, but I doubt it. Sestak would have beaten him in 2010 if it had been a presidential-year electorate, and if Hillary is the nominee for the Democrats she's likely to have some coattails.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:They don't actually want to win the election--they make more money being in the opposition. The problem during the Bush years is that the lobbyists and such didn't get paid so much, because industry and the wealthy knew Bush would give them what they want without having to lobby.

Do you really believe this? Isn't the simplest answer, that in order to win the general election one must win the primary, the most reasonable? It doesn't require a tin foil hat, too.

your simple answer isn't necessarily at odds with TV's larger-scope analysis. It's a little like particle & wave theories in physics. For instance, your "reasonable" explanation for what goes on at the local level isn't necessarily in conflict for how the game is played at the national level.

Yeah, I was talking about Rubio, which is what TV was responding to, and i dont really care much how random lobbyists act. Rubio is ultimately responsible for his own positions on issues, and he's trying to win a national election by positioning himself first for the primaries.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:They don't actually want to win the election--they make more money being in the opposition. The problem during the Bush years is that the lobbyists and such didn't get paid so much, because industry and the wealthy knew Bush would give them what they want without having to lobby.

Do you really believe this? Isn't the simplest answer, that in order to win the general election one must win the primary, the most reasonable? It doesn't require a tin foil hat, too.

your simple answer isn't necessarily at odds with TV's larger-scope analysis. It's a little like particle & wave theories in physics. For instance, your "reasonable" explanation for what goes on at the local level isn't necessarily in conflict for how the game is played at the national level.

Yeah, I was talking about Rubio, which is what TV was responding to, and i dont really care much how random lobbyists act. Rubio is ultimately responsible for his own positions on issues, and he's trying to win a national election by positioning himself first for the primaries.

Well this is a little confusing. I suppose it's possible to argue his photo op with the pro-mass gun death Senators is a deft political calculation, rather than a cynical grab for filthy NRA (and other influence peddlers' ) lucre, but in this case it seems like a stronger case must be made for the former. I mean, how is his grinning face literally in the center of that deplorable coven of withered lizards not his very own personal Abrams M-1 tank snapshot, on steroids?

You can question whether it's smart without asserting with a straight face that he's trying to lose.

This might be the least controversial position I've ever taken... I feel like I'm taking the anti-tin foil hat position.

Rubio may or may not want to be President. But his handlers have a different agenda.

Rubio's handlers have a more direct incentive for him to be well positioned to win the nomination than Rubio himself does. Marco may or may not want to be President, but being a high ranking aide to someone who wins a presidential nomination is the ultimate golden ticket in the political consulting world.

And as for docsmooth's post: it's not a grab for lucre. It's a fear that supporting gun control legislation will cost him base support in a primary. Or a calculation that he can differentiate himself from other contenders (Christie for example) on gun issues. NRA endorsement directly influences votes, which is more important than campaign dollars.

Feel like most people prefer alleging politician X is taking Y political stand that I disagree with because of campaign money rather than because of voter support. But gun issues among Republicans are clearly not things they're doing because of campaign $$. The NRA isn't freaking Wall Street or PhRMA or ExxonMobil. And yes, the background checks and other proposed changes are hugely popular among the general electorate, but the average person really doesn't give a shit about gun issues, and a lot of GOP primary voters are on the other side are care more.

Maduro beats Capriles by less than 2%. Pretty amazing it was that close. If the regime is going to carry on in Chavez's absence, it will have to dismantle democracy even further.

Maybe the republicans could send down their Voter ID braintrust to help him dismantle it.

The Venezuelan left has already silenced most opposition voices from media and taken over all but one news channel, integrated the military into the ruling party apparatus, removed the independence of the judiciary, eliminated most constraints on the executive, nationalized industry (most importantly the oil company) and turned it into an important cog in supporting the party. Even with all of their institutionalized advantages and the lingering sympathy from the death of Chavez, Maduro still couldn't get 51% of the vote. The next steps are outlawing opposition parties or arresting opposition candidates.

The parallels with voter ID laws are striking.

jerseyhoya wrote: the average person really doesn't give a shit about gun issues, and a lot of GOP primary voters are on the other side are care more.

you're right. People don't give a shit about gun issues. They care about children murdered by AR-15 gunfire issues. If the murder-weapon fellating imbeciles would merely blow their own fool heads off with their rapid-fire killing tools, this would be a non-issue.

jerseyhoya wrote:The Venezuelan left has already silenced most opposition voices from media and taken over all but one news channel, integrated the military into the ruling party apparatus, removed the independence of the judiciary, eliminated most constraints on the executive, nationalized industry (most importantly the oil company) and turned it into an important cog in supporting the party. Even with all of their institutionalized advantages and the lingering sympathy from the death of Chavez, Maduro still couldn't get 51% of the vote. The next steps are outlawing opposition parties or arresting opposition candidates.

The parallels with voter ID laws are striking.

ha, good one, i get it

Madeleine Albright: "There's a special place in hell for women who don't support each other."

Agreed.

wait i thought that was taylor swift

jeff flake allows as to how he'll filibuster any vote on the mass murder weapons legislation, then a little while later shows up - and speaks! - at a memorial for Gabby Giffords aide Gabe Zimmerman