resercons

Ronald Reagan: “Let Them Go Their Way”

Calvin Freiburger campaigns, conservatism, Newt Gingrich, NY-23, Republican Party, resercons, Ronald Reagan

Scarcely a day goes by that some “respectable” Republican doesn’t wave his finger in disapproval at those of us who believe in holding Republicans to some basic standard of principle, lecturing us about how we don’t really understand the nature of politics.  Michelle Malkin notes that Newt Gingrich is the latest finger-waver, invoking none other than Ronald Reagan in defending his support for the lying, cowardly, leftist Republican Dede Scozzaflava in New York.  Michelle offers a response from none other than Reagan himself:

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Little Green Freakshow

Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, Charles Johnson, dishonesty, extremism, race, resercons, Rush Limbaugh

There’s a special place in hell waiting for Charles Johnson, regardless of whether or not he believes it’s really there.

Once one of the heavy hitters of the blogosphere (he helped in blowing the lid off Rathergate and founding Pajamas Media), in the past couple years Johnson has shifted the focus of Little Green Footballs to rooting out any perceived extremists (real & imagined alike) from the right-of-center, a venture that has its place (I’ve made clear my opposition to Birthers, Paultergeists, and other genuine loons & bigots), but for Johnson that crusade has morphed into something else entirely: a smear campaign based on specious (if any) evidence against…well, darn near every conservative blogger & commentator who isn’t him.

Ever expressed doubt as to man’s contribution to global warming?  Evolution?  You’re an extremist who has to be destroyed.  Host a blog, but don’t police the comment threads to Johnson’s exacting, jackbooted standards?  You obviously endorse every word there, then.  Is there an out-of-context or unsourced quote attributed to you floating around the Internet?  Good enough for Chuck!  Burn the witches!

Mind you, I hate Ron Paul every bit as much as the next sensible conservative, but that doesn’t justify dishonest attacks on him.  Likewise, I happen to believe in evolution (yes, I’ve changed my position since reading Godless, thanks in part to the excellent work of Dr. Francis Collins), but is creationism in public schools really a dire threat to the Union?  Please.

It was only natural that Johnson would jump on the bandwagon to keep Rush Limbaugh out of the NFL, and his conduct in this matter perfectly illustrates the (empty) content of his character.  Ace picked up on Johnson’s sleazy peddling of a fraudulent list of racist Rush quotes, and his utter indifference to their veracity.  Now the Media Research Center has released a report on the smear campaign, in which they mention Johnson as one of the perpetrators.  Johnson’s reaction?  Does he feel a shred of professional or personal obligation to honesty?  Nope: “I’ve finally made it. I’m an “offender” in this Rush Limbaugh idolizing article at the far right Media Research Center. My life is complete.”

That and a list of “racist and race-baiting quotes from Rush Limbaugh that are sourced and verified”:

“Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.”

If Johnson or Media Matters would care to explain how speculation about the motives behind inconsistent stances on Iraq & Darfur (right or wrong) constitutes racism, I’d love to hear it.  Speaking bluntly about racial components to political issues is not “race-baiting.”

“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

Rather than a “look at those violent blacks on the field!” comment that Johnson would like you to believe this is, it comes from a larger discussion on class & maturity in NFL culture—in which he compliments San Diego Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson and Philadelphia Colts wide receiver Marvin Harrison as “the two most classy individuals playing in the National Football League today, in skill positions.”  As clicking on their names reveals, a little context can be a dangerous thing.

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

I can’t find context for this one (maybe Rush was trying to prod lefty sensibilities), but okay, it sure doesn’t sound good.  Absent a good contextual basis, he should apologize.  But is Rush Limbaugh a racist?  Ask his producer.

“Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

Rush apparently said this early in his radio career, to an unintelligible black caller.  Crude?  Insensitive?  Yes, but Rush openly regrets it, and an ill-considered quip uttered in frustration is hardly worth crucifying the guy over.

“I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

This is commentary on media sensibilities regarding race, not race baiting.  Next.

“Obama’s America: white kids getting beat up on school buses. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama’s America, white kids now get beat up, with the black kids cheering, ‘Yeah! Right on! Right on!’”

*sigh* Johnson has already been called out for this faux controversy.

Since I began writing this post, Johnson has updated his post with the Snopes analysis of the “disputed” (that’s LGF-speak for what the rest of us call “phony”) Rush quotes—y’know, the only ones that show any actual racism.  He offers them without commentary, expresses no regret for his role in peddling them, and probably didn’t add them until it occurred to him that they might help him save face.  To Charles Johnson, blogging means never having to say you’re sorry.

Why the obsession with smearing people?  Why the abandonment of integrity?  Who knows—maybe his departure from Pajamas Media left him with a chip on his shoulder.  Maybe he’s overcompensating for similar charges that have been leveled against him in the past.  Whatever the cause, Little Green Footballs is no longer worthy of its once-revered place in the blogosphere, and is now nothing more than a Little Green Freakshow.

Goliath Has Nothing to Fear from These Davids

Calvin Freiburger Bill O'Reilly, conservatism, David Brooks, David Frum, extremism, Glenn Beck, John McCain, liberalism, Republican Party, resercons, strategy, stupidity

David Frum is promoting David Brooks’ latest column, in which Brooks says:

Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.

They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time.

This is delusional on several fronts. Brooks’ claim that the GOP is at the mercy of talk radio is totally undercut by his own column’s earlier observation about John McCain’s primary success, despite the longstanding bad blood between McCain and the pundits. But that’s not to say his other claim, that the talkers have no sway with the actual voters, is much better — just ask Harriet Miers, the United Arab Emirates, or the Republicans who wanted to ram amnesty through Congress (all issues talk radio sounded the alarm on) how far they got.

It’s interesting that Brooks attributes the GOP’s decline to the rise of Glenn Beck (who didn’t really hit it big until after Obama’s victory), Sean Hannity (who was a superstar well before any discernible GOP decline, and was doing his usual routine during Republicans’ Congressional gains in 2002 and both of George W. Bush’s victories in 2000 & 2004), and Bill O’Reilly (an independent with hawkish defense and law-&-order sentiments, but also a global-warming believer who spends half his time demonizing oil companies and treating any politician who might give him an interview with kid gloves), and not to what these supposedly-kowtowing Republicans actually did:

Bush and the Republicans spent massively, especially in Bush’s first term. We opposed that, mightily. The president’s most cherished initiative, probably, was the Faith-Based Initiative. We opposed that. Then there was his education policy: No Child Left Behind. We opposed that (mainly on grounds that it wrongly expanded the federal role). He had his new federal entitlement: a prescription-drug benefit. We of course opposed that. He imposed steel tariffs—for a season—which we opposed. He signed the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance—which we opposed. He established a new cabinet department, the Department of Homeland Security. We opposed that. He defended race preferences in the University of Michigan Law School case; we were staunchly on the other side. He of course proposed a sweeping new immigration law, which included what amounted to amnesty. We were four-square against that.

I am talking about some things that were very dear to Bush’s heart, and central to his efforts—and self-image, as a leader. NR, the conservative arbiter, opposed those things. The Republican party, by and large, supported them—with one glaring exception: the immigration push.

He might also do well to consider that McCain’s failed presidential bid was hardly in the mold of a Limbaugh broadcast, or, if he’s really feeling intellectually curious, he could ask himself what effect a primary field divided among multiple candidates with partial claims to certain aspects of conservatism (Romney on economics, Huckabee on social issues, Giuliani on terrorism, etc.) might have had.

David Brooks is dead wrong, but we shouldn’t be surprised that David Frum is enamored — these days Frum dreams of a new conservatism that looks suspiciously like liberalism, and spends more time hyperventilating about TV personalities’ occasional missteps than extremists in the White House.

(Cross-posted at The HF Blog.)

The Conservative Chessboard (UPDATED)

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, David Frum, extremism, resercons, strategy

David Frum’s attacks on Glenn Beck have spurred NewsReal’s David Swindle to pen an interesting take on the conservative movement and the roles of different types of figures within it.  He calls it the Conservative Chessboard:

The ideological, political war in this country is basically a chess match between the Left and the Right. Beck and Frum are different pieces with different styles and abilities. Beck, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, most of Fox News, and most of talk radio constitute our side’s Rooks. They are strong, fast, blunt, effective (at what they do) and aggressive. They are tremendously valuable pieces in the game.

Frum and many other quieter, intellectual conservatives or center-right writers are more akin to our side’s Bishops. They’re not quite as valuable and effective as the rooks but they still provide an elegance and sophistication that is necessary in the defense of America. They do things that the rooks cannot do.

(And by now no one should be wondering where Coulter fits in. She exhibits both the aggressiveness of the rook and the intellectualism of the bishop. As I’ve stated before, she’s our queen — the most valuable piece on the board.)

The King of the Right is not an individual. It’s the American Idea — the one idea that all pieces are working together in their different ways to defend.

[…]

Who we cast as the Knights and the Pawns is something I open up for discussion. (Sometimes I wonder if we Generation Y conservatives might be somewhat Knight-like in the way we move. We might not yet have the reach and strength of the Boomer and Gen-X rooks and bishops but we can jump over many of the ideological stereotypes and problems of those that came before us.)

We could probably debate for some time precisely how to cast certain figures—while Hannity’s never going to be mistaken for one of the Bishops, Limbaugh frequently rises above the level of mere Rook, and for radio personalities who further blur the line between brain and brawn, look no further than Dennis Prager or Michael Medved.

Also debatable is just how far one can deviate from the norm and still be, on balance, an asset.  David Frum, for instance, is a stalwart defender of Israel and a serious observer of foreign policy, but when it comes to domestic policy, he spends most of his time arguing for a new “conservatism” that sounds an awful lot like liberalism, or hyperventilating about talk radio and Pat Toomey (and let’s not forget his dishonorable role in Tillergate).  In my estimation, as good as Frum might be on war & peace, he’s not offering anything that can’t be readily gleaned from thinkers who don’t have his baggage.

At the other end of the spectrum you have the real extremists and nuts, like the Birthers and the Paulistinians.  Robert Stacy McCain, while a supporter of neither, doesn’t think there’s much to be gained by freaking out over them; he says we should “get used to the idea that the conservative coalition of the future will be a loud, rowdy and unruly bunch, composed of diverse people with disparate beliefs.”  I think there’s some truth to that—this summer I wrote that “as anyone who’s ever tried to calm down Crazy Uncle Billy at Thanksgiving dinner should realize, it’s insane to expect that Michael Steele or Rush Limbaugh can somehow enforce behavioral lockstep among every member of a movement comprised of millions of people”—but I think Stacy’s a little too dismissive of the phenomenon.  Again, anyone who cares about a cause has to be concerned when wrong is done in that cause’s name, and while you should never expect credit from the Left for doing the “responsible” thing, I do think it’s useful to get on the record against true extremism, which isn’t the same as cowering in fear of whatever fake outrage the Left tries to make into political kryptonite.

On the whole, though, I think Swindle has come up with a great analogy, as long as we don’t mistake the Rooks’ specialty for aggression for an absence of the Bishops’ intellect, and vice-versa (which I don’t mean to suggest he has done), and as long as we maintain logical standards for the minimum expected of the pieces.

UPDATE: Many thanks to David for the feedback!  I’ll be sure to give it some thought and respond as soon as classwork allows.

UPDATE 2: Here’s my reaction.  The short version: “I believe Generation Y Conservatives can embrace and reinforce our generation’s potential while countering the arrogance of youth and fighting for the timelessness of truth, justice and the American way.”

Around the Web (Extremist Edition)

Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, conservatism, David Frum, dishonesty, extremism, Glenn Beck, misc, resercons

Think your neighbor might be a racist?  Via Power Line, here’s a handy chart that helps you find out (Newsweek can help in that regard, too).

The Washington Post reports that the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit has struck down some major campaign finance restrictions; political advocacy groups “are now free to accept unlimited contributions, to spend unlimited funds independently supporting or opposing federal candidates.”  Interestingly, this particular suit was first filed by the pro-abortion Emily’s List, yet the report stresses that the ruling could be “a boon to groups tapping into the fervor of anti-Obama activity and ‘tea party’ events.”  Regardless of whose ox is being gored, the fewer restrictions on participation in the political process, the better.

Via Hot Air, even more reasons to distrust David Brock’s con men at Media Matters: first, they accuse Hot Air of “smearing” Van Jones by making the true statement that he was a 9/11 Truther.  Of course, in order to support this lie, MM needs to selectively omit pesky language about “immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.”  Second, they’ve been caught selectively editing video of Glenn Beck discussing the recent ACORN sting operations, removing precisely what they accuse Beck of not saying.  Unbelievable.

Speaking of Glenn Beck, conservative-hating conservative David Frum has been on the warpath against Fox’s newest rising star.  David Horowitz has been sticking up for Beck, and catching Frum in a lie or two in the process.  Frum has nothing to say about the substance of Horowitz’s arguments, aside from complaining that Beck’s apparently too cozy with Ron Paul.  Is he?  I don’t know—it’s late, I’m not Glenn Beck’s spokesman (I tend to think he does more good than harm, but he’s unquestionably eccentric), and I’ve got better things to do than watch old cable news interviews.  You can decide for yourself if you’re so inclined.  I will say, however, that I strongly disagree with any conservative who gives so much as a second’s airtime to this lunatic, and Beck deserves criticism for that, no matter how defensible some of Paul’s domestic-policy ideas may be.  But is a TV host being overly-friendly to certain guests grave enough to warrant the kind of purge Frum (ironically, given his big-tent worship) demands?  I don’t think so.

Earlier this week, Frum also linked uncritically to this HuffPo piece claiming that Beck has supposedly lost over half his ad revenue…without mentioning it’s a reprint of the press release from Color of Change, the guys behind the boycott.  Neither did he mention that their claims are crap.

Lastly, in case you haven’t noticed, alleged onetime conservative (and current pathetic toad) Charles Johnson has incurred the wrath of Robert Stacy McCain for his rank smear-mongering.  Here’s Stacy’s latest.  Required reading?  Nah, but it’s darn satisfying.  Oh, how I love the smell of smoked weasel in the morning…

Paul Mulshine: Moron

Calvin Freiburger healthcare, resercons, Sarah Palin, socialism, stupidity

Prior to seeing his latest column linked at Hot Air’s headlines, I’ve never heard of Paul Mulshine.  Upon reading it, I’ve determined that’s a good thing.

Mulshine has “got a creepy feeling Sarah Palin’s a socialist.”  Okay, he gets points for coming up with an attack we haven’t heard before, but socialist?  How does he figure?  By quoting Palin’s now-infamous “death panel” statement, in which she says:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Somehow, Mulshine concludes Palin’s “central thesis” to be “that Medicare should indeed provide essentially unlimited coverage for Palin’s child as well as her parents.”  Next comes a lengthy lecture on Ronald Reagan & the free market, which is all well & good—except for the fact that it’s a complete non-sequitur.  Palin’s “central thesis” exists only in Mulshine’s imagination.  As would be obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a toaster, she was discussing what she thought would happen under a government-run, single payer healthcare system—y’know, when nobody but the government is there to cover anyone?

Not once does Palin indicate she believes paid healthcare for all is a right.  In fact, let’s turn Mulshine’s challenge to Palin supporters to “find the slightest indication on her Facebook pages that Palin realizes she is responsible for paying for her children’s health care” around on him—prove your assertion that she doesn’t, Paul.  Oh, and this time, remember to show your work.

More examples of Mulshine’s crappy reading skills can be found in his observation that Palin “seems to be assuming that [baby Trig’s] care comes under the Medicare law,” despite the fact that Palin never mentions Medicare or Trig’s current healthcare; and this gem: “Unless I miss the plain meaning of her words, Palin is arguing that it is evil for the taxpayers to deny anyone any coverage ‘to reduce the growth in health care spending,’ as she put it in a later post.”  But if you read the post he’s referencing, you’ll see that phrase isn’t Palin’s at all—she’s quoting the “stated purpose” of HR 3200, Section 1233, in the process of analyzing what the legislation says.  Brother, you’ve missed the plain meaning of all her words.

This article did make me ask questions, though.  Questions like, how could a self-described conservative author such a train wreck? And then I saw the bottom of the page, where Mulshine approvingly links to a Ron Paul video.  Ah.  Now I see…

It’s a good thing Paul Mulshine’s “Pre-emptive Moron Perspective Alert” to his commenters doesn’t come until the end of his article.  Any higher and it would have disqualified his own commentary.

PS: Andy McCarthy, Thomas Sowell and Mark Steyn think Sarah Palin was right to warn America about the prospect of “death panels,” and even a couple liberal, pro-Obama advocates of nationalized healthcare have conceded there’s cause for concern with the current legislation.

Pat Toomey & Arlen Specter: Neck and Neck

Calvin Freiburger 2010, Arlen Specter, campaigns, conservatism, David Frum, liberalism, Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania, polls, Republican Party, resercons

I’ve written before about how the anger resercons like David Frum have for Pat Toomey is both unprincipled and foolish.  Today, with the 2010 midterms still over a year off, Arlen Specter’s once-profound lead has disappeared: Quinnipiac has Specter at 45%, Toomey 44%, “and voters say 49 – 40 percent that Sen. Specter does not deserve reelection.”  Anything could happen between now and Election Day, but there’s plenty of reason to be optimistic that Republicans can regain Specter’s seat—and do it by putting principle over (faux) pragmatism.

No wonder the guys at New Majority haven’t mentioned Toomey in a while…

Palin 2012 Begins Today? (Updated)

Calvin Freiburger 2012, campaigns, conservatism, Republican Party, resercons, Sarah Palin, strategy

Sarah Palin just shocked everyone by announcing that she is stepping down as governor of Alaska at the end of the month, before her first term in office is even up.  From what I can tell between her official statement and her brother’s remarks to Fox News, she’s citing the following reasons:

– her administration has largely accomplished in 2 years what they promised to do in 4

– fighting the onslaught of false & frivolous ethics complaints has become so costly to Alaskan taxpayers and consumed so much of her and her staff’s time that state business has inevitably gotten the short end of the stick

– she doesn’t feel she can do any good as a lame-duck governor, and new Governor Scott Parnell will ultimately be better for the state

– she feels she can best serve the country by fighting for conservative causes and individuals in as-yet unspecified ways

We’ll have to wait to see what she does post-office to know for sure, but it smells to me like Sarah Palin is running for President of the United States.

Jim Geraghty says her career is good as dead, and Morrissey & Co. are not amused, while Bill Kristol thinks stepping down could be shrewd.  I more or less agree with Kristol’s high-risk/high-reward assessment.  She’s risking criticisms that she can’t take the heat of the opposition and that she’s abandoning Alaska to her own ambition (between now and November 2010 is long for a “lame duck” period), both charges that could have been avoided by waiting out the rest of her term.  On the other hand, I have no doubt that the cost of fighting the smear campaign, both to the state and to the Palin family, is tremendous.  If she spends the next couple years boning up on foreign policy and genuinely fighting for conservative causes (Mitt Romney made a similar pledge, but his follow-through has been underwhelming so far), it’ll be time well spent, and she’ll be a formidable candidate come campaign season.  The Democrats have surely noticed slipping support for Barack Obama’s policies, and they can’t be thrilled at the prospect of somebody with Palin’s popularity and communication skills, free from the shackles of public office, becoming a regular spokeswoman against The One.

I also want to note one thing that caught my eye: Palin’s pledge to support good candidates regardless of “what party they’re in or no party at all.”  Could that be a warning that she won’t take lightly to liberalizing the Republican Party, and is willing to take her chances as an independent conservative?  Maybe I’m reading too much into a mere rhetorical bone thrown to bipartisanship, but resercons should tread lightly…

If nothing else, we can thank Sarah Palin for this: she got the talking heads to shut up about Michael Jackson for the longest period yet since he died.

UPDATE: Allah thinks she’s out of luck for 2012 but is really angling for 2016.  I doubt it—if she’s waiting another four years, then that would be all the more reason to finish her current term.  Naturally, speculation abounds that this is preemptive damage control for an impending monster scandal (maybe Dr. Sullivan has finally cracked the Trig case!).  I’m skeptical (of course the nutroots are gonna take the most disastrous possible option), but we’ll see.

UPDATE 2: Full disclosure: in retrospect, I think my early declarations that “Palin 2012 Begins Today” (sans “?”) and that there was little doubt left about her presidential plans were impulsive and premature, and I have changed this post accordingly.

Don’t Count Toomey Out

Calvin Freiburger Arlen Specter, conservatism, David Frum, liberalism, Pat Toomey, Republican Party, resercons, strategy

When Pat Toomey, the conservative former head of the Club for Growth, challenged liberal Republican Arlen Specter for the nomination to Specter’s seat in the US Senate, the beating Specter’s poll numbers took led him to officially move to his true spiritual home, the Democrat Party.  Predictably, resercons like David Frum wasted no time in accusing the supposedly-unelectable Toomey of giving total control of the Senate to the Democrats by needlessly taking out the Republican who had a decent shot at retaining the seat.

The polls, however, tell a different story.  Specter’s 20-point general election lead diminished by half between the beginning and the end of May, and the latest polls show no reason to put a fork in Toomey.  Specter currently leads Toomey 50-39 (Rep. Joe Sestak’s lead on Toomey is smaller at 41-35).  This would be very bad news if the election were weeks, or even a couple months, down the road, but the election is still a year away.  You don’t have to be a professional pollster to have noticed that lots can change in short periods of time.  For instance, a candidate’s connection to a psychotic reverend could come to light…

Bottom line: there’s no reason to consider this race over, and Toomey is no traitor to the “greater good” of the GOP.  Specter made the decision to leave the party precisely because he didn’t feel loyalty to its greater good.  This is the sort of man Frum thinks deserves “an honored place made in the Republican Party.”  But as the polls show, the GOP very well ma reclaim that seat next year—thanks to a candidate who has principles, for a change, someone who actually believes in his party’s platform.

UPDATE: As Ed Morrissey points out, Toomey is hardly some kind of unserious also-ran:

Toomey didn’t just come out of nowhere.  He won an election to Congress in a district best described as moderate, replacing a retiring Democratic incumbent and beating another popular Democrat by ten points.  He won re-election twice afterwards, until he kept his promise to limit himself to three terms in the House.  The notion that Toomey would only appeal to the Republican base has no evidence, other than the fears among Specter apologists.

Resercons

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, resercons

Craig at Lead & Gold has a post about faux conservatives in which he presents a new term for them: “resercons,” or “reservation conservatives”: purported right-wingers who sell out their principles for approval from, and ingratiation in, the liberal establishment.  It’s a great term that I’ll be using in future critiques of such talking heads, and credit goes to Craig and the Other McCain for alerting me to it.