One Conservative Says “Thank You No” To Felix Macacawitz

    207
    2
    SHARE

    At least one conservative blogger isn’t thrilled with the idea of George Allen – aka, “Felix Macacawitz” – for Senate in 2012.

    …I believe that in the Republican orbit, Allen is Old Virginia.  We saw how Republicans can win in New Virginia in 2009.  McDonnell, Bolling, and Cuccinelli showed us how you can be an aggressive conservative and use that as a solution to the every day problems of the folks out there. McDonnell talked about jobs, they all talked about jobs.  Our candidates talked about jobs for the House of Delegates.  And we won, we won big.  McDonnell led the way, getting out ahead of an issue that mattered most in this bad economy.  We can’t turn our backs away from what we accomplished.  It might sound harsh to some, but returning to George Allen is returning to the Republicanism of 2005 and 2006, where we talk about conservatism aimlessly without the glue of a real agenda behind it.  And maybe I’m wrong, maybe Allen is the right man again, maybe he’s learned.  But at this stage of his career, can you believe he has?

    It’s an interesting argument, although in the end I don’t buy it. Substantively, what’s the real difference between George Allen on the one hand and McDonnell/Bolling/Cooch on the other?  Are there are any policy areas – economic, social, or foreign policy – on which they disagree?  I can’t think of any in particular. Does it come down to Allen simply being a less disciplined, less effective communicator than McDonnell, Bolling or Cooch? I don’t buy that either. After all, Allen was elected governor of Virginia as well as U.S. Senator, so he must have been doing something right all those years. Furthermore, how are all the extreme things Cooch, McDonnell et al. have said and written any crazier than calling someone “macaca?”

    In the final analysis, I don’t really see how “Felix Macacawitz” is significantly different than “Pat Robertson’s Manchurian Candidate” or Kookinelli.  They’re all hard-right conservatives through and through, both on economic and social issues.  The only real difference? McDonnell and Cooch won their last elections; Allen lost his. And there’s nothing people like less than a “loser.”

    P.S. One other difference is that Allen ran against “true American hero” Jim Webb and a fired-up grassroots movement; McDonnell ran against conservadem Creigh Deeds (’nuff said) and a demoralized Democratic “base.”  Maybe that’s the key factor more than which flavor of right-wingnut the Republicans end up nominating?

    • leedynamo

      YES.

      1) Atmospherics.

      2) Deeds

      Look at Deeds.  He did not do well in the re-match.  There has to be a compelling reason for a re-match.  It is completely different from a candidate taking a 2nd run at a House seat.  We are talking about someone trying to win an old job back after losing.

      That is just lame.  It generally does not happen and I don’t expect it to in this case because the individual in question is exceptionally under-qualified.

      We tore his f-ing face off.  I am proud of that.  But, it was not that difficult to see the potential of torching a huge jerk who spent SIX years as a public servant RAISING MONEY for his political party.

    • TomPaine

      a polarizing figure: recall his inaugural statement about “. . . knocking their (the Democrats) soft teeth down their whiny throats!”