Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Top Headline Comments 2-7-12 | Main | The Daily DOOM
February 07, 2012

Mitt Romney and the Tea Party Pundit

I'm a Tea Party fan. I like the focus on fiscal issues that was absent from the last half of the Bush years. I like the idea of folks stirring from their apathy to get involved in stopping President Obama's runaway liberalism. It's a nice story. That feature in particular, the claim that they came out of the ranks of the formerly politically disengaged, has caught the imagination of many conservative pundits.

Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection is in that camp. He worries that the Tea Partiers will return to their political inactivity if Mitt Romney wins the nomination. Jacobson has some numbers about the Tea Partiers' origins and he's riffing on a column from GuestBlogger Ben Domenech, so click over and read it. I'll wait.

Okay, you back?

The problem is that this romantic idea that the Tea Partiers bestirred themselves from political disengagement to challenge fiscal insanity isn't very true even according to the numbers Jacobson cites. A majority, a slim one, were already at least "somewhat" politically active before the rise of the Tea Party. The Tea Party moniker just gave this group better PR than they had previously and they attracted a minority of folks who were previously "rarely" or never politically engaged. Jacobson calls this minority group of previously disengaged folks a "near majority." Heh.

This insistence by some conservative pundits (Jacobson isn't alone in this) that the previously-disengaged Tea Partiers will be so disillusioned if Romney becomes the nominee that they abandon politics seems to me to be another way of saying that inconsistent voters will behave inconsistently. I'm going to say that again so that it sinks in: inconsistent voters will behave inconsistently. Think of how we chuckle every time a Democrat (or Ron Paul) vows that "this time is the time" the youth vote is gonna totally materialize and save them. Yeah, no. Inconsistent voters are inconsistent.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it's even true that the Tea Partiers will return to apathy and let Obama be reelected if they have to accept Romney (I'm not sure there's anything other than anecdotes to support this assumption, but the anti-Romney folks really need it to be true, so let's proceed...), I'm not sure why such a fickle group of people should be catered to.

Obama is poised to reshape the United States, not just for the next few years, but for a generation. At least two, and probably three, and quite possibly four Supreme Court justices will be chosen by whoever wins the 2012 election. Think of what a liberal Supreme Court would have done in just the past few years. The Second Amendment would be treated only as a collective right (Heller and McDonald). Citizens could be prohibited from exercising their freedom of speech when they also exercise their freedom of association (Citizens United). Capital punishment would be unconstitutional (Roper and Kennedy dissents). The partial-birth abortion ban would be unconstitutional (Carhart). Private organizations couldn't exclude members they don't want (Boy Scouts of America). Now imagine what a liberal Supreme Court could during the next thirty years.

So that's the danger; Obama gets to fundamentally reshape the United States into a European- or maybe Canadian-flavored state. And it confuses me when Professor Jacobson suggests both that (1) the Tea Partiers are ready to disengage from politics; and (2) we should make policy and candidate choices based on the Tea Party's preferences. It seems to me that the first suggestion should rule out the second.

It's silly to say that inconsistent voters will be less inconsistent if only we cater to their every whim. It may be true. I doubt it, but it could be true. But there's no reason in the world that we should take such a risk. Not when the future of American exceptionalism is at stake.

If Jacobson wants to convince me that the Tea Party should get to choose our candidate, he should argue that the Tea Party can deliver success over Obama. Not that they'll stick their heads (back) in the ground if they don't get their way. Powerful voting blocs are not composed of people who are only a primary away from disengaging from politics. I want the people on my team to be committed to seeing this election through to the general election defeat of President Obama. Amazingly, the most consistent group of folks with that aim are the Romney supporters, among which I now (since my man Perry is out) count myself.

digg this
posted by Gabriel Malor at 07:34 AM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
mindful webworker - freedom's just another word : "[i]...hundreds of people dope-sick, smoking fentan ..."

mikeski: "[i]The doctors suggested that Pollock should apply ..."

Doof: "[i]Little guy knows his machines Posted by: Don B ..."

Bilwis Devourer of Innocent Souls, I'm starvin' over here: "If that kid isn't on JD's payroll, he should be. B ..."

Tonypete: ""Look, we screwed up and only partially killed you ..."

OrangeEnt: "If we end up in WWIII, those pushing for it should ..."

the same harm reduction advocates: "[i]Harm reduction advocates saw Measure 110 as [.. ..."

Idaho Spudboy: "Meanwhile, in Ukraine: 1. No big battlefield news ..."

"Perfessor" Squirrel: "Canadian Doctors Admit Covid ‘Booster’ ..."

Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? [/s] [/b] [/i]: "Canadian Doctors Admit Covid ‘Booster’ ..."

mindful webworker - bemazed : "And so, here we are again. Amazing. Hi. ..."

TRex: "Good evening horde. On to the content (thanks WD) ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64