Who Are The Bad Guys Again?
By horaceox Posted in The Parties — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from Diaries by Thomas
I intially was going to post this as a response in a chain on mbecker908's diary on Taking Back the Senate (Part I), but thought this was an important enough discussion topic that it warranted its own diary.
I don't really have a problem with taking on an 85% Republican like Chuck Hagel in a hyper-red state like Nebraska. With Kerrey and the very popular mayor of Omaha considering the race, I'll admit I'm somewhat hesitant (we haven't had both Sen. seats in Neb. since 1976, and had neither from 1978-96, when Hagel won), but the principle makes sense to me.
Read on...
My objection is to the prioritization. I tend to think there are probably more compelling targets, and that Part I of our strategy should be defeating a bunch of Dems, while Part II should be knocking out Republicans who break on key issues (and who represent states where one could reasonably expect to get a 100% Republican, eg not Rhode Island).
I'm worried, though, that for many here, Parts I and II of our strategy are both about knocking off Republicans. This is part of a larger and more problematic tone I see growing around here, which is to mow down our own members in the comments while largely ignoring the other side. Looking over the diaries listed right now, I see a number of them dedicated to knocking down and attacking varying members of our party. I can learn why Chuck Hagel, Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ron Paul, and Sam Brownback are bad Republicans, and why the Republican Party can't be saved. I don't see a single one going after a Democrat. Even assuming that Republicans are an equal part of the problem as the Democrats, this doesn't make any sense.
But I don't grant that any of these Republicans is as bad as any of the Democrats. The vote on card check is enough proof for me for that; upcoming votes on things like Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine" will likely reinforce that. If O'Connor's and Rehnquist's seat came open today, there is no way that we get Alito and Roberts through. Not a chance. Nor is there if we had a 53-seat majority, with Alex Sanders sitting in for Lindsay Graham and Erskine Bowles sitting in for Liddy Dole (another favorite target around here). I just can't accept that Sen. Bob Kerrey is no worse than Chuck Hagel, or that Sen. Janet Napolitano is no worse than McCain, or, for that matter, that moving a Senate seat from an 85 ACU to a 100 ACU is more important than moving one from a 9 to a 100 (or even an 85).
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter, but I welcome attempts to convince me otherwise. Ultimately though, all I would ask is for at least as many diaries criticizing Democratic candidates as Republicans around here (and in fairness, the front-pagers are very good about this).
It seems to be becoming a KnownFact™ around here that only lunatic fringe types take advantage of the primary process.
Let me know when we're putting Arlen Specter, Linc Chafee, Lindsey Graham, or the rest in blackface, or screaming like freakos because they hugged somebody we hate just as strongly.
Yeah, hugged. They flipped out in no small part because Lieberman hugged Bush.
So can you please elaborate on what part of the whole Lieberman/(um, what's his name? That guy they ran and whose name I never remember) race you oppose?
Run like Reagan!
despite his overwhelming liberal record because he was pro-war, actually more like anti-Islamic terrorist.
They were in no danger of losing the seat to a Republican so they really weren't taking too much of a risk.
If we're willing to toss people we need to make sure the replacement isn't likely to be worse.
Maybe I used a poor example since it was low-risk, but in some states it could be high risk to get rid of a current Republican.
and his objections to the war are what is truely in his heart and what he truely believes is best for the country he loves. I don't think he is trying to exploit something for personal gain.
Other than his view on the war, does anyone have a big problem with him?
If you vote differently because of an issue, I have no problem. My objection is the tearing down of a man because he is making a stand for what he believes is right.
I also feel the President doesn't deserve the anger he has felt on immigration. He made it clear, for years, how he felt about reform there. If you don't agree with him, more power to you if you actively and passionately work to oppose him - but don't act betrayed by something he told us he would do if he got the opportunity.
How we should never vote for the lesser of two evils.
I am just thankful we stopped this insane amnesty. Now if we can just stop the renewal of the no Kennedy left behind bill we will really be making progress.
It amazes me how quickly people forget. We had the White House, the Senate AND the House for six years. The number of RINOs -INCREASED- during this time....they did not decrease. What the author (and many who have replied) doesn't seem to realize is this: the conservative base will not tolerate RINOs taking over our party anymore, even if that means turning the government over to the "enemy" (democrats) to make the point.
It's ironic that so many can't see how well this has worked for the moveonorg folks and how they've taken over the democrat party. They control the primaries and anyone that wants to run for a seat with them has to toe the line or they don't make it past the first round. The difference between them and us is, they've slowly taken over the democrat party in the past 20 years. We're trying to hold on to ours. If we don't want to see the same slow bleed happen to our party we're going to have to stand up and refuse to support these RINOs, and turn the seat over to the democrats if that's what it takes to make them listen.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Morally and intellectually bankrupt owners of defeat, hostile to people of faith, non-lovers of America, citizens of the world indifferent to borders, ashamed of their country's history, consummed by irrational White Guilt, envy possessed rotten to the bone victim-dependent seeker advocates of policies based on skin color, pretentious slanderers of The Sun contending that Man, not the star warms the Earth, haters of the proletariet, tax robber baron penny wise pound foolish children having hissy fits over the bullies around the corner cowards.
Compared to the Dems, the Repubs' problems are like a gnat.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
but that doesn't mean he agrees with me or anyone else 85% of the time. Also the problem is that these ratings consider everything equal - I don't, For example, even Abortion is very important to me so I don't consider Rudy to be with me 80% of the time. The war is very important to me, so I may not consider Hagel to be with me 85% of the time.
My point is that with Hagel you get someone who is pro-life, and with Rudy you get someone who wants to win the war.
With Bob Kerrey you get neither and with Hillary Clinton you get neither.
That's why I don't understand the disproportionate time spent attacking the former two, compared to the latter two.
We have 49 seats in the Senate, and are likely to lose at least a couple more this cycle to Democrats who will not be with us on anything.
We have 202 seats in the House, and may well lose a few more to Democrats who will not be with us on anything.
We hold the Presidency, but right now are not particularly well poised to keep it, and face losing it to a Democrat who will not be with us on anything.
The war.
The courts.
Talk radio.
A free workplace.
Non-confiscatory taxes.
This is what is at stake.
This is not the time for a family feud.
And it's not with people who think it's a good idea, given the electoral climate in 2008, to spend time and energy going after Republicans. Especially after the events of today.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Leon, have you ever considered it a "good idea" to go after an establishment Republican? If so, when and why?
What I think some here are missing is that while some people focus on the (R) after the name, many of us focus on whether a Rep is a true "Representative", or whether they're just another member of the "Washington, DC Party".
In the case of Hagel for sure, and Graham very likely, they've crossed that line.
So, is it just as important to go after these guys as it is, say, Landrieu?
Put me down with a very strong "AYE!"
I still say this may give us an opportunity to get rid of some dems.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I supported geoing after Arlen Specter in 2004, because I felt like we had a good chance of keeping the majority. There's a chance I might be coaxed into going after Ted Stevens this go-around.
It's all about tactics. You have to evaluate the field, which for us is very bad this election cycle, in the absence of a Presidential candidate who develops serious coattails, an unlikely event at this point. It's going to be very extremely hard to hold serve in the Senate, and I just don't think that going after Hagel - who *is* with us over 80% of the time, is the wisest expenditure of resources. Especially when there are guys like Stevens are out there.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
So, is it just as important to go after these guys as it is, say, Landrieu?
No.
Examine the voting records of Hagel and Graham and stack them up against Landrieu and I'd say the answer is pretty clear to anyone who elects politicians because of their stances on issues, as opposed to whether they personally like them and/or are irritated by them.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Very well said. There are a lot of issues, and if you throw someone overboard every time they don't agree with you on one, you don't end up with many left. Actually, plenty of left, not much right.
if you throw someone overboard every time they don't agree with you on one, you don't end up with many left.
No one is talking about throwing GOP politicians out over "one" issue (though, in certain circumstances, even that is justifiable).
We're talking about throwing people overboard who either consistently or *substantially* deviate from the line. That's what we're talking about.
The immigration bill was a unique (well uncommon) phenomenon. It was something that united a vast majority in the country as being horrendously stupid. It had a series of back room deals that got revealed. The bill had carefully crafted flaws that got exposed before it could get anyplace.
Given that the immigration bill was so outrageous, such a blatant insult, what are the odds that we come up with the pressure for lesser matters ? Voter ID ? Free Trade ? Keeping the tax cuts ? Earmark reform ?
The recent activity hilights the need to get rid of the appropriators and used car salesmen in the party. I don't expect congress critters to be saints but I like em to have a backbone and confine their theft to that which doesn't hurt the country.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I have no problem with attacking all these SOBs in the abstract. The pigs will always take to walking on their hind legs, wearing the farmer's clothes, and eating at the dinner table. This tendency knows no party affiliation; it is a central part of human nature (and is exactly why I still support term limits). And we have some porkers that are sitting at that table, clutching forks and knives and eating bacon (to mix my cultural allusions badly). It's our job to stop that, regardless of party affiliation. I get that.
My only point goes to the timing of things, and focus. You don't attack the pigs in the middle of the Battle of the Cowshed. Right now we have a serious, serious problem on our hands in the form of an election in 18 months that we have about a 75% chance of faring very, very poorly in. Go after the RINOs after that. But not today. At the very least, we should be going after the humans and the pigs equally.
(actually, the term limits thing is a pretty decent example of what I'm talking about. I was on the Hill (working for a very conservative member of the class of '94, I'll have you know), and got to see first-hand USTL shoot itself in the foot because it refused to accept anything less than a 3 House term, 2 Senate term limit. It actually ran ads against House members supporting an equal 12 year/12 year split. We all know where it got them).
The overall strategy is just like a sports team. If you find a better player for a particular position on your team, do it. The overall goal is to beat the other team by putting your best line-up on the field/court.
I don't think anyone is advocating voting Dem just for payback for a unpopular Rep, but rather putting pressure on our own to improve or replace them with a stronger candidate.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
We need to take a look at why Republicans were in the majority in the first place, and why they spent so many years in the minority.
We were in the minority because the party was full of Rockefeller Republicans - moderate to liberal - who were content to take the crumbs handed to them by the Democrat majority and media. For instance, when they spoke out on Nixon, they were lauded as patriots. They retired, gathered their pension, and went on the rubber chicken circuit.
Then along came Reagan, inspired by Goldwater, who bravely articulated the conservative agenda. Ordinary Americans, sick of the weakness of Carter and excesses of Dems, voted for Reagan overwhelmingly. But that was only phase I.
Newt Gingrich took the ball across the goal line with another clear articulation of CONSERVATIVE principles called the Contract With America. The shift in the House and Senate was seismic - but not permanent. The last straw was the Democrat-lite "firewall" strategy of Tom Delay - trying to build a structural majority instead of a principled one.
Our problem is that no one likes to be gutted like a fish by the MSM, even today. (Thank God we have Fox and talk radio and the internet to provide balance and fact-checking.) The hatred on the left, particularly since they have lost their monopoly on the airwaves and power, knows no bounds and knows no decency. So it is only natural that normal human beings get tired of being drawn and quartered, or becoming the victims of the left's idealogical car bombs. It is only natural that decent people try not to wallow in the excrement with the left.
As a result, you have the morphing of Republicans into "mavericks" - riding to the aid of the country on white horses and bipartisanship. They are embraced by the MSM, not drawn and quartered, they believe their press clippings, and see this as the easier way to gather more power.
The problem is that the easy way is a dead-end. The MSM will turn like a school of piranha, and any attempt by the mavericks to upend the status quo will be met by the vitriol that they so hoped to avoid.
So - how do we get back in the majority? By not dealing with people who would just as soon knife us in the back. By taking our case to the American people with clarity. And by facing up to the thugs that swarm in the media. In short, by campaigning and governing on principle and PARTISANSHIP. By adopting the tone that is necessary, not "new". By standing like a Stone Wall while being burned in effigy (Jesse Helms comes to mind).
Graham and McCain and Hagel and Chafee (RIP) are not the future. They are the past.
As my Grandmother said, "If everyone swept their own doorstep, the whole world would be clean". It is time to start sweeping.
and believe that there is has been no taking on of Democrats at this time because that fight and planning comes after the primaries. Republicans who vote like a D need to be cleansed from the party otherwise what is the point in having two parties? I don't see many D Senators voting with conservatives on issues that are important to us however R's at least 40 percent of the time are being "civil" and voting with D's, that insanity has got to stop.
And said well!
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
Is it to be a "majority" or to advance an agenda? Jack Savage has it exactly right. Want an example? Are you upset about the limits on political speech in McCain-Feingold? That law was: (1) passed by a Senate with a Republican majority, (2) passed by a House with a Republican majority, (3) signed by a Republican President, and (4) found Constitutional by a Supreme Court which had 7 of the 9 Justices appointed by a Republican President.
If you are always supporting candidates who will subvert your agenda how can you make any progress?
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater
When the latest Supreme Court ruling on McCain-Feingold's unconstitutinality was released this week.
In effect, President Bush unwisely signed the bill, probably thinking the Supreme Court would strike the most dangerous portions down under the free speech banner...political speech, no less
opps...but, with his 2 brilliant Supreme Court picks, this foolishness lasted only 4 yrs in its most dangerous, unbridled form. Lost the battle but won the war? Touche?
"So - how do we get back in the majority? By not dealing with people who would just as soon knife us in the back. By taking our case to the American people with clarity. And by facing up to the thugs that swarm in the media. In short, by campaigning and governing on principle and PARTISANSHIP. By adopting the tone that is necessary, not "new". By standing like a Stone Wall while being burned in effigy (Jesse Helms comes to mind)"
It takes guts. It's takes belief in principles .... and Duh ... A SALES/PR DEPT. Geeez! It has mistified me about the Bush Admin me since I came on this site. It's because of my husband's philosphy in his company: "EVERYONE is a salesman."
PARTISANSHIP = OUR PRODUCT IS BETTER THAN YOURS. HERE'S WHY: ...... SHORT - CLARITY.
======
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
... so I could frontpage it.
i.e. repost it as a diary.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
It is also imperative that we take a look at the Republicans in congress who are starting to fall to the wayside, distancing themselves from the White House. It is important that we make sure our voices are heard by our elected officials to keep the party together, now more than ever. Regan's great strenght was unity, and it seems some of our own could use a reminder or two. The defeat of the liberal agenda requires unity on the following:
- No amnesty for illegals. Ever. Strict border security, and possible closure to undesirable foreigners? Yes.
- The need to continue to bring the fight to all our enemies, foreign and domestic. It is vital that we be allowed to do what it takes to get information from terrorists and any who would speak out against us, be it torture or wire taps. We will establish a firm foothold in the Middle-east, so that we may bring our values to those less fortunate than ourselves. We will fight until we win, or Christ himself returns!
- A strict adherence to Christian family values. No gays in the military, no legal observance of same-sex marriage, and the support of legislature condoning one man and one woman marriage, and condemning abhorrent lifestyles in our society. Support any legislature banning the immoral practice of stem cell research.
Now more than ever, we must show unity in the face of such an unruly mess of people as now inhabit our halls of government. Pray for victory over liberal tyranny!
...although I'm pretty sure that you're a kid. Whether you're a moby* or honest twerp, either way: get thee hence.
Blam.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*The 'any who would speak out against us' would normally be diagnostic, but I've seen some truly stupid things written out in all earnestness, the last few weeks.
Not that I agree with everything in it either, but sheesh... THAT was ban-worthy? Why? The silly iron-grip at Kos and DU has nothing on Redstate...
I take it that "BLAM" is some kind of wannabe Dirty-Harryish shorthand for the big bad moderator banning somebody, because I saw a few "BLAMS" today in another thread(which were equally ridiculous). If this is not the case, then I apologize for my mistake.
If it is the case, then that's just pathetic. But fairly amusing, I admit. Monitoring these boards for legitimate offenses, profanity, or rudeness is one thing. But for posts like this and others I've seen banned is something else. It just smacks of throwing your weight around to try and be a tough guy... over the computer. REALLY cool, I must say.
You act as if posting here is some great privilege, to the point where we all must kowtow to stay in your good graces. I've seen you threaten others to do tasks in order to be able to have the right to stay a Red State commenter, such as "writing blogs", etc. You outright threaten people with banishment unless they do tasks to please you and calm your volcanic ire.
Well, that's how guys who loved to be Hall Monitors in school always acted...
But trust me, the "right" to post here isn't some huge deal to anybody. Any place that bans people for comments such as the one above is a petty, silly place that shouldn't warrant a serious person's time. There's plenty of childishness on the web to go around - we don't need to get another fix here.
And if you want to ban me for speaking my mind about this moderation issue, despite my lack of profanity or rabidness in this post, then be my guest. I'll shed no tears.
If I want to run into geeky Hall Monitor types on power trips I'll build a time-machine and go back to grade school. If I want to post on serious, well-moderated political blogs without Napoleon complex-afflicted "enforcers" acting like ninnies then I have many other options than here.
with the concept of what a "moby" is, or how to spot them, or you wouldn't have misapprehended the point so badly. Or then again, given the rest of your comment, you would have.
We have a "contact us" button that's prominently displayed if you want to complain about us brownshirts who police the site, or any Napoleon complexes we may or may not have. People read the emails sent through that button, and if anyone cares about what you have to say, you will get a response. Otherwise, you can scuttle along somewhere else and leave a nice "they banned me! ME!!!" diary somewhere. Be sure to send us a link; we have a collection. Your call. If you think our site will be any worse for the loss, then we're not the only ones with complexes.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I know what a "Moby" is. I just think you guys go quite a bit overboard in ferreting them out. And like I said, it isn't just "mobys" - if it where, I think you'd just ban them on detection, not do things like get people to perform tasks for you in order to keep you away from the "BLAM" button, which is something I've seen you guys do on here.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the occasional airing of disagreements on moderation by an internet community, and think there is no reason the comments shouldn't be open to all in said community to see and discuss if they want.
However, this is not my blog, and if you'd rather get complaints only in private, away from the eyes of others, then that's how I'll complain from now on if you haven't banned me by the time I try and send this post.
...that we're requiring from you and all is forgiven.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...if I had read it from the other way my enthusiastic agreement on my essential geek status would be a lot more incongruous. Sorry, Sparky, but I've been trash-talked by better.
However, you do still have to address your inability to actually click links below, so get going with that.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...to sniff that one out.
The poster condoned torture and wiretaps for political opponents.
And that "until Christ returns" bit is offensive. I don't believe for a moment that a real Christian said that.
These guys don't maintain a forum so that kooks (or kook-impersonators) can make them look like chumps.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
Immigration is my priority. How can you protect yourself from terror when Dem's are in control? I agree with getting rid of Graham in a primary if possible. The problem with him is... on facts, amnesty is wrong and should not be rewarded and I believe many LEGAL immigrants aggree with this. Having a Senator going out and telling people his party is full of racists is no way of helping. This is a stereo type this party has faught forever because of the labeling by Democrats. He easily could have disagreed with us in many ways, but by resorting to an old Liberal trick, he hurts everyone, the same goes for Specter after his rant this morning. A soft Republican gets you into unnecessary fights like this bill. They lead the charge on issues the party hates and bash you along the way. Kyl may be a good Senator, I don't know, at least he didn't waste his party during this promotion.
I think a bigger issue is replacing the leadership. If McConnell, Lott, Specter, and Graham etc were moved to the middle of the bus and people like Sessions, Demint, Vitter, Cornyn etc. took the lead I think the party would be in better hands. These guys are hungry, and don't seem to have been bought off yet. I was really impressed with them during the debate. I don't know the process of changing leadership, but I believe that would do much to help heal any wounds within the party. I don't believe Reid wants to deal with any of them either knowing they are willing to call him to the mat on issues. Truth be told, I'm envious, I live Jersey and listening to Menendez is making me sick. He was a crook in NJ Senate and replaced another crook in Toricelli. This state is shot because of labor and illegals, god help us.
...your diary omits one import factor of this debate. One of the Republican parties problems is with Republicans who like being moderates to the point of agreeing with Democrats more than they do with their own party.
One of the big issues that destroyed the Republican party in the 2006 election is because even though they were the majority party since 1994, they were not behaving like it.
I draw your attention to the gang of 14 deal. Why would Republicans help the Democrats stop President Bush's judicial nominees? People who have "R"'s next to their name and actually did those things brought a very significant amount of grief to their own party members. Please take notice that the names of the people who did that are the same names of those who played a big part in this amnesty debacle.
Is it possible we have trend here? I think so. However, the place to deal with this is in the primaries, not in the general election. The primaries are about who will represent our party. The general election is about defeating Democrats.
Right now it is right to fight amongst ourselves to see who we want to represent us. If a sitting member of Incumbantistan is not willing to compete in the area of ideas, and thinks they are entitled to their seat, then we deserve to get debacles like that immigration bill, C.F.R. and The Gang of 14 dumped on us. Then we should also shut up about what their imperial wisdom is gracious enough to bless us with too.
However, I am not going to shut up about it.
...but that is my opinion.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
wishing Hagel and Graham to be replaced with more conservative Republicans. That has to happen in the primary, and no one doubts that the popularity of each has dropped significantly in their home states. A popular alternative Republican choice might have a better chance of defeating Democrat opponents than these two who have disappointed, even enraged their state Republicans so often.
These questions will be answered in the individual states, as they should be. What's said here on the subject is of no consequence.
with Republicans will always be a default and fundamental Republican strategy. That goes without saying. However, that should not distract from replacing fake Republicans with real ones in the Senate or the House.
Both objectives are equally important. The enemy within is just as dangerous and pernicious as the enemy outside.
Hagel, Grahamnesty, McCain, Kyl, Lott all of these deceitful charlatans fully deserve a primary fight at the very least. Hopefully we can throw some of these pests out of theirs seats.
As regards Guiliani, yes he he is not pro-life. But he IS paying a price for that in terms of the fact that many Republican are gravitating toward Fred Thompson on that account.
The only caution i would add is do it one or two at a time.
Results are achieved only when there is focus. I say right now we focus on taking out Graham and Hagel. Graham faces a primary in 08.
Regards McCain, his support has already sunk for his presidential bid because of his treachery on Immigration. Throwing out this phony from the Senate will be a much harder task though.
I find the “one size fits all” approach to be particularly bothersome. For example, recent calls to make all who voted the first time for immigration cloture “pay” at the ballot. Certainly, that is short sighted and does not account for potentially good reasons one might vote that way. What if we could have eliminated “Z” visas? What if we were using amendments to meet legislative challenges? That may be utopian, but how is it deserving of vitriol and promises of retribution? Looking at the final vote, that appears to be mostly wasted energy.
Accordingly, we should be Argus-eyed with those who seemingly do not support the values which make this a “party”; ever mindful of parochial circumstances which while potentially not pleasing, may be an electoral necessity for some. The puling and raffish attacks do nothing to further debate or make candidates more appealing to anyone; in fact they accomplish quite the opposite. They are malodorous and obfuscate the overall party platform.
If you want to express your dissatisfaction with an individual examine the record first. I certainly disagree with comments and positions taken by a segment of our party; but then I never expect or vote with an expectation any candidate will be my personal sycophant. Any person holding that type of expectation will fall victim to self fulfilling failure.
What about recent immigration related attacks on our President? Certainly, if you examine the record he made no secret about his feelings on this issue. Yet many now articulate their lamentation in endless diaries and commentary; unquestionably your right but not worthy of promotion. For in following a sagacious person would consider that issue in balance of all other positions formulating a basis for your vote.
What of the safety in which we live today, the string of SCOTUS victories or social issue positions; should that not in sum be worthy of either concurrent mention or vitriolic temperance? I believe it should be and represents a paradigm for other situations. Consider the complete environment and potential alternatives. If that is accomplished in a fair and deliberate manner, I suspect much of this wasted energy would not be expended.
Excellent, thought provoking diary.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
between Party Leaders and the base on issues do occur. No question. However, whenever party leaders disagree with their base on IMPORTANT issues such as Immigration reform, their ONLY option is tor try and convince the base otherwise. IF they FAIL to do so, and the base remains unwavering, they have an obligation to still DUTIFULLY REPRESENT THEIR BASE. They have no right whatsoever to insert their own political opinions into their votes in washington even when they are diametrically opposed to the wishes of the people that voted them into office.
When they commit such grave disobedience to the base as we saw for example on the Immigration Bill, it is time to replace them. If we don't do that we get more of the same nonsense.
Its important to fight Democrats. Its also important to remember what we are fighting for.
Extracts may be found here.: I think that this is the gist, but I'd have to track down the whole speech to be certain. Anyway, you need to read it, because you'll be writing a 500 word essay on the subject if you want us to reconsider turning your account back on.
Send it in via the Contact tab.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
party man, and since my conservative epiphany in 2000, I am a republican party man. I have an agenda. The conservative agenda. And to get an agenda passed, one must do it via a Party.
I am the dems whistleblower nightmare. As pathetic as the GOP spines are, it is light years better than the dem party. The dem party is a sick thing.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
We don't want to do like the Dems did with Lieberman over one issue.
But at the same time Hagel seems to be looking more and more like McCain over the past few years. We need to keep our eyes open on him. If a better option comes along, so be it; but it would be dumb to toss him for someone to the left of him and Nelson.