More fratricide in the GOP

Glenn Reynolds endorses the idea that Republican extremists, not content with beating normal Republican conservatives, should “stomp on them.” Go ahead, fellas. Let’s you and him fight. I’ll hold your coats.

Footnote In the very same post, Reynolds insists that the (relative) moderates in the Castle camp have an obligation to “pull together and strive for harmony now.” Would that be before the stomping, or after?

Update Malkin bashes Rove and Fox News.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

6 thoughts on “More fratricide in the GOP”

  1. Thank you for those imperishable links. Malkin calls Karl Rove "effete." Effete Karl Rove.

    She also passes on this bit of reporting: "The Freedomist has also learned that Rove was allegedly acting as an operative, although in what capacity it is not known, even as he is playing the role of a political analyst on Fox New in a fair and balanced way." Rove was allegedly acting as an operative. (In man-pants, I pray.)

    It's almost enough to make one hope these people could undo themselves.

  2. I would enjoy the scratching and clawing display of manliness even more if the Dems were capable of capitalizing on the situation. Since they are not, I watch (without enjoyment) our country circling the bowl.

  3. Actually, he quotes an email, to the effect that when establishment candidates refuse to accept that they've been beaten in primaries, and run spoiler campaigns out of spite, they should be stomped, rhetorically speaking. A sentiment I agree with. The party establishment routinely tell the base that they have to unify behind whoever wins the primary, even if it IS an establishment hack. The party establishment can damned well follow their own advice when party hacks lose.

  4. I guess I take the middle ground. I don't think the losing candidate or his supporters have any kind of obligation to affirmatively transfer their support, whether in the form of money or time, to the primary winner, but I detest third party candidacies that arise out of a failed primary. If you want to run a third party campaign from the get go, certainly, it's increasingly clear that a third party might be a desirable option, but the sore loser's impulse to run as a spoiler is not a good thing, by and large.

  5. I'll bet everyone in this room $10 right now that Bellmore said the opposite of what he just said above when it came to the Lieberman campaign.

Comments are closed.