It’s like putting the USDA brand on what’s supposed to be NY Strip Steak— only you get it home and find out it’s really a tough and tasteless piece of chuck steak. Brand naming should count for something.

This wasn’t just about someone saying something on Twitter, it was about revealing the truth of how organizations are choosing our candidates for us and not letting us choose them ourselves. Again, the “You’re really too stupid to understand this stuff..” But we’re not too stupid to donate money when you ask, are we? Yeah.

We have learned over the years that Erick Erickson is a trustworthy person with a true understanding of and love for conservatism and America. He wants the process to work as it was intended and not to be muddied and perverted by all these machinations.

IT’S NOT ABOUT JUST WINNING!! It’s about winning with your principles intact so that you can actually effect change and not just tweak the status quo every so often.

You know, I’m more a reader than a commenter, and I try my best to filter through the commenters and find out who can offer good, solid analysis so I don’t waste my limited time reading dross. Thank you for establishing yourself as a complete moron at analysis. I now know to ignore anything you post.

So, we all mistook his (failed) attempt at insight into the Fla-Senate race as a jab at Hoffman, and his case of “NY-23 must-winsies” as the kind of spin we see used all of the time by the punditry class when they try to inflate the meaning of a defeat.

In fact, a careful reading of his “tweets” and other comments shows (barring the possibility of a pedantic scrub-down) that he was, in fact, a Hoffman supporter that seemed genuinely disappointed with the result (though his phrasing could’ve been much, much, better).

He clearly made a bad mistake by jumping on the “establishment is right” bandwagon regarding Rubio before it was even built (let alone pulled all the way into the station), and the swipe at EE/RedState was a tad crass (and the response from EE, proportionate).

He has admitted that he was ignorant about the Rubio candidacy — ie., the monster improvements in fund-raising; the mounting number of polls showing that, though still widely unknown, Rubio beats Meek by a few points more than Crist (not that electability is a real concern anyway, as the generic R wins by double digits in that race); the numerous straw polls hinting at his wild, and increasing, popularity amongst the part of the base paying attention — and he has now has stated, for the record, that he does in fact want Rubio to win (with the regulatory squish caveats).

He now calls Crist nothing more than a barely acceptable candidate. Look, that’s one of the few milquetoast things a guy on our side could say that I would actually consider high-five worthy.

In summary: he tried to score big points by being the first guy to draw a parallel (which doesn’t exist) to the Fla-Senate race (which he knew nothing about); and whiffed. Badly.

I’d call that a bad enough day already; so let’s just give the poor slob a break…

I spent many years in various officer positions in a number of NPOs. In all of them, I was responsible for carefully measuring my words when speaking to organizations, vendors, and people who were involved with our activities. I’ve even been part of successfully playing the leverage games in the press. Anything you say on Twitter is part of the public record. If it in anyway could possibly affect decisions you may be called upon to make as an officer of that corporation it WILL reflect on that organization.

Looking at it rationally – As a third party candidate attacked by both sides he got 45% of the vote in a district that is supposed to be untouchable for conservatives.

Ultimately, and I will write more on this – the NRCC killed him, and many of the outside groups helping him unintentionally strangled his momentum at the last moment. Expect the full explanation of all of this to be blogged the rest of the week. I think it will become pretty clear why those who understand the situation see this as a very positive sign for conservatism.

Selecting a candidate because he is “winnable” for the sake of winning is not just my cup of tea. For me, it’s betting. We will just dump the candidate if he loses, which is not honorable for me. But if we select a candidate because we believe in his principles, then even in defeat, we can say that “it’s worth dying for”.

Why can’t all of us just blame Scuzzzzzzzzzzzzzyfavvvvva and commend the courage and resolve of Hoffman who has been an excellent gentleman even in temporary defeat [ I still want him to run in 2010.]? Scuzzy’s nolonger a Republican anyway, as far as I am concerned.