Joe Knows....Except When To Keep His Mouth Shut

God bless Joe Miller.  If he holds his primary lead and wins the Alaska GOP senatorial nomination, I know he'll win in November and serve with distinction as a much-needed voice for constitutional conservatism in the U.S. Senate.

But in the here and now, he really does need to shut the hell up:

Such incendiary rhetoric will only serve to antagonize the Republican grassroots AND the GOP establishment, create more tension in a situation already laden with it, and worst of all, potentially scuttle the outside possibility of regaining control of the Senate along with the House of Representatives.

Here's my humble attempt at talking Ace in off the lunacy ledge:

I'm with you on everything you say about Murkowski and the NRSC, but not on your suicidal non-solution.

Specifically....

If the NRSC continues attempting to thwart the sovereignty of the people, I'm personally out, and I don't care anymore if Obama's Democrats win....

If the Republican Party is a royalist party, then I flee them as well, and I confess my error: The more radical elements of the Tea Party are right, third party is the only way possible, even if it means living under socialist rule for a generation.

If that's how you feel, Ace, then why not just fold up your AoSHQ shop and go find something else to do with your time?  You've obviously been wasting it here fighting the good rhetorical fight only to give up on it now when we're within sight of saving the country as we know it (for a while, at least).

In life, you have to make choices.  Sometimes those choices are easy, and sometimes they're hard.  And sometimes they're really, really icky.  A choice between a bad and a worse.

I don't see the 2010 choice as between a bad and a worse.  More like between a mediocre and an apocalyptic.  Yeah, the mediocre leaves a lot to be desired at times, and sometimes they can be infuriating (as with Diehard with a Murk), but they're still enormously preferable to the apocalyptic.

If you want to look at the 2010 choice between a bad and a worse, fine and dandy.  But worse is still worse.  You can't possibly sustain the argument that one (more) recalcitrant RINO is as bad as what we've endured the last year and a half under the Obama regime, and that enduring a generation of it is preferable, all so that you can make an intra-party point.  You just can't.

The hell of this is, we (at least on this site) are poised to reenact the same tighty-righty lunacy that helped launch the Obamadency four years ago.  You can't convince me that YOU need to be told this after all you've written about the futility of puristic fratricide.

In short, we must prioritize.  Take Congress back first, then take back the White House, THEN have this "keep your hands off our primary" scrum.

Besides, given the likely public reaction to Murk buying herself the Libertarian slot, isn't it more likely that she'll go the way of Sorry Charlie Crist and fade in the general, leaving Joe Miller the ultimate winner?  Isn't that why (at least as much as the Palin endorsement) Miller won (assuming his current lead holds) the primary in the first place?

I am freaking sick and tired of my right-wing brethren's endless obsession with "teaching the GOP a lesson".  Look at it this way: If they haven't "gotten the lesson" after the last year and a half, they never will.  But I think they have, enough so that the isolated "recalcitrant RINO" shouldn't be able to knock us off the rails again so easily when the finish line is in sight.

But even if not, it changes nothing.  Because mediocrity is still preferable to the apocalyptic.  That's a lesson that WE should have learned after that same last year and a half.  If we're incapable of learning that lesson, than the country will go to hell - but it won't be the fault of diehard RINOs Libertarians like Lisa Murkowski.  Rather, we will have met the enemy, and the enemy will have been us.