Final post on RedState

By kowalski Posted in Comments (142) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Folks, this is my last post on RedState. The simple fact is that for the last two years I think all of us have worked very hard, for free, to try to bolster a Republican majority that hasn't deserved our support. I've given hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time, and I'm deeply ashamed of having been a part of this movement, and I think that Dave Winer of Scripting News has it right:

Here's a Democrat that gives Republicans their due. Republicans broke the law, covered up, and they're going to jail. Ultimately this will be good for the Republican Party, it'll flush out the criminals that took over the party. Any Republican that sits by and says nothing is going down with the evildoers. Maybe sometime in this century it will be safe to vote Republican again, but it sure isn't now.

And it isn't likely to be again, for me, for quite some time. This party got itself into power with hubris and it is leaving power because of its own inability to police itself. And that's about it as far as politics is concerned for me. I've enjoyed the conversations here with people who were as earnest and convinced that something wasn't rotten at the core of our party as I was. But I'm not interested in carrying their water any more.

Take care, and good luck to all of you.

[Last update: I want to emphasize again that I know that there are dozens, even hundreds of good people on this blog who have given every ounce of their energy to supporting Republicans in the past two years, come what may. I think most of the things they have fought so diligently for are correct. But unlike Democrats, I feel shame. And I recognize that shame is sometimes a good indication that something is wrong with the way your party is doing things. And it's time that some of the people on the Hill felt some shame, in my view. In the meantime, I cannot in good faith continue to put a positive spin on Republicans in this election. Their actions have been a needless disgrace on so many occasions that I cannot in good faith be a positive voice here any longer. And so I have decided that until that changes, I have nothing else to say.

Except this:

Regardless of how badly you feel over the current scandals, vote your conscience for the representatives and senators who deserve your vote on the merits. Perhaps we have too much opinion and not enough responsibility on the part of the people in Washington. I think they have shirked their duty to us. They have betrayed our trust. And I will not continue to support that betrayal. Until it is corrected, and this Party can be legitimately proud of itself again, I abstain.]

Editors Update:Kossacks rejoice in kowalski's departure

Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.

It's been a real pleasure reading your stories and articles. I've always enjoyed your opinions and admired your ability to stand up for what you thought was right regardless of whether or not it's the party line or popular thing to do.

Good luck in your future ventures.

I'd suggest the libertarians but they purge the party about as regularly as the democrats did between 2002 and 2004. (But, I must say, it is nice to vote for a guy and feel like you actually wouldn't mind if your guy won.)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

And stay involved in at least the causes you support. You will be missed here.

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

hit you on the way out.
You are being played for a fool.

If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I don't want to say just that. I don't think ill of anyone who leaves Red State because the issues at hand cause them stress, nor would I want someone to stay here who's just going to be negative all the time.

So, good luck, even if I think you're way, way off on your read of the party.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Why you think I'm "way, way off" on my read of this party when this morning on FOX News there was an interview with someone from The Hill who opined that this was a "disaster" for the Republicans and went on to describe it in similarly catastrophic terms, including "handing a gift to the Democrats?"

Why do you think I'm wrong when that's what people from The Hill are saying as of this morning on FOX News? I think I'm being pretty tame in my assessment, all things considered.

Right now The Hill is reporting on how this is going to affect Reynolds and how the house is scrambling, including Hastert. This morning the entire country that was watching FOX News learned the words "disaster."

Why am I wrong, here on RedState, when The Hill was so obvious and candid about it on FOX News this morning? I mean, the word "disaster" is pretty clear. I don't even think I've used the word "disaster" yet. Maybe I should have.

What a loser. LOL

Maybe I'm a loser for reporting what people at The Hill are already calling this disaster, which aired on FOX News this morning at about 9:00. I appreciate your support. My advice is to email The Hill and tell them what "losers" they are too.

The only real losers are those who are quitters - like you. :-P

The same could be said of everyone on this blog who has relentlessly supported the complete failure of this Congress in the past two years. Who is the fool, hunter? The people who thought that they were electing real fiscal conservatives? The people who thought they were electing leaders to the House that wouldn't soft-pedal allegations of sexual impropriety by the people who were supposed to be taking care of missing and exploited children? The people who have believed that sinking half a trillion dollars into Iraq was going to lead to something other than a sectarian bloodbath? Who is the fool, Hunter?

Let us see ----- low taxes, winning war, renew Patriot Act, defend NSA, stop dhimmicrat attacks on national security,
Please define failure.

If too many people like Kowalski give up on the GOP, the only alternative is the Dems. After House Majority Leader Jack Murtha re-deploys the troops to Okinawa, allowing terrorists in Iraq to run amok (and infuriating the new Japanese PM), Senate Majority Whip Hillary Clinton passes socialized medicine, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are impeached for cruel and unusual punishment of Guantanamo "victims", and President Pelosi signs into law the 50% income-tax bracket, and tall buildings start mysteriously exploding, Kowalski will come limping back asking somebody to do something about the situation.

We're not there yet, and we can't afford to get there! It ain't over until the fat lady sings...

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

Please define success.

Success is no more foaming at the mouth, talking-poins-spouting troll here.

Good bye.



Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

Let us see ----- record debt, civil war, breach of constitutional freedoms, illegal spying, hurrican Katrina, and what seems to be an endless parade of neoconvicts busy covering up everything from money laundering to pedophilia.

Please define success.

You forgot CheneyTheHunterKiller™, Diebold®Cheated™, and BushLied™. Other than that, you've made a nice list of the various KnownFacts.

Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Who is the fool, hunter? The people who thought that they were electing real fiscal conservatives?

Have we not advanced fiscal conservatives such as Pence, Shadegg et al? Not enough? So keep on plugging away. I suspect if you'd been around after Goldwater's defeat you'd never expect to see a Republican in the WH. Or even dream of a Republican takeover in '94. Defeatism has never advanced a cause.

The people who thought they were electing leaders to the House that wouldn't soft-pedal allegations of sexual impropriety by the people who were supposed to be taking care of missing and exploited children?

Excuse me, but you've swallowed the MSM storyline hook, line and sinker. The e-mails Hastert knew about were pretty innocuous, at most a bit over the top. Even the Florida newspapers said so, which is why they didn't break the story. It is the IM's which blow the lid on Foley, and those Hastert did NOT have.

The people who have believed that sinking half a trillion dollars into Iraq was going to lead to something other than a sectarian bloodbath?

Monday morning quarterback here? Did you predict a "sectarian bloodbath".

Bottom line you've been paying too much attention to the MSM, Take a week off and come back and see how you feel then.

you are correct. I think our estemed collegue needs to lay off the MSM for a while.

They are trying to turn off Republican voters.

Remember that none of this happens in a vacuum. What will be the results of our inaction?

What a lot of people forget is that we are in a real, live war which has consequences which will impact us. If we allow Democrats to take congress be expecting the "assualt weapons ban +" to be reintroduced along with cutting of the funds to Iraq, tax increases and other nasty little suprises.

Nothing will get done until President Bush is impeached. My guess is that the House will try to impeach both Bush and Cheney and install Pelosi as President.

Is that what you want?

I don't mean to be glib about reporting on something as serious as this, but my feeling is that Representative Foley himself did quite a bit to turn off Republican voters. It's astonishing to me that people here are worried about turning off Republican voters when it was *one of our own* who did everything in his power to do exactly that.

If you'd like to continue the discussion about why there are so many allegations of a Republican cover-up on this issue, I think you've hit the first ball about 200 yards down the fairway, friend. It's an unmitigated disaster and the more people in this party try to make it something different, the stronger the people who are calling it a "coverup" will get.

It's about time that people in this party woke up and realized that what has happened is a complete, unmitigated disaster. There is nobody to blame but Republicans, and there is no deflecting the blame onto Barney Frank, the MSM, the Advocate, or anyone else for it. This party has just absolutely, completely shipwrecked itself by trusting that man. The only blame that should go around is inside the party. Period.

"Monday morning quarterback here? Did you predict a "sectarian bloodbath"."


Don't tread on me.

Can you provide any quotes from prior to the Iraq war, or is this a "trust me" type of thing?

But I've been against the Iraq since before it started and have been amazed at how the obvious results-to-be were being totally disregarded back then and still rationalized to this day by the faithful. It wasn't that hard to forsee.

But that's neither her nor there on this thread. I just wanted to point out that the current state in Iraq and all the ripples were not that hard to see back in the fall 2002 as the buiild up progressed.

Don't tread on me.

swan song. You are liable to make him forget his abject despondency over the state of the Republican Party.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Nobody who calls themself a fiscal conservative can be proud of the record of either this President or the Congress. It's just been a porkfest from the day he entered office. On national defense, how many of our dollars are being absoultely wasted? At this late date, here in 2006, apparently the military is getting round to doing something about improvised explosive devices. On social issues, this Conservative/Republican caucus has been played like a gang of fools by Tom DeLay (who absolutely did try to elevate Terri Schiavo to national prominence to distract from his own ethical problems) and now, even the Washington Times is calling for the resignation of Hastert.

You tell me, Hunter: Who are the fools, here?

Nobody who calls themself a fiscal conservative can be proud of the record of either this President or the Congress

Has any Congress or President been better? Not that this is an excuse, but it's important to realize that spending money is the raison d'etre of a politician and changing that is a slow and arduous process. To bail out because of this issue is nothing but a copout.

On social issues, this Conservative/Republican caucus has been played like a gang of fools by Tom DeLay (who absolutely did try to elevate Terri Schiavo to national prominence to distract from his own ethical problems

Most social conservatives applauded Tom Delay trying to save the life of a woman being denied food by an adulterous husband. Care to explain how were they "fooled" by him?

Besides, Delay's "ethical issues" is another MSM KnownFact (tm). He played hardball politics, nothing more.

Boy, you've turned into a TalkingPoint-o-Matic pretty quickly, haven't you?

I thought that this was pretty common knowledge (that Clinton created a surplus), not that I endorse his policies.

Net Deficit ( ) or Surplus for Budgets Created by Each Administration since Eisenhower in 2005 Dollars*:

First number = Total. Second number = Yearly Average
Eisenhower 1954-1961 ($101,992,000,000) ($12,749,000,000)
Kennedy 1962-1964 ($113,359,000,000) ($37,786,000,000)
Johnson 1965-1969 ($207,554,000,000) ($41,509,000,000)
Nixon 1970-1975 ($528,447,000,000) ($88,704,000,000)
Ford 1976-1977 ($479,515,000,000) ($214,892,000,000)
Carter 1978-1981 ($641,734,000,000) ($160,434,000,000)
Reagan 1982-1989 ($2,547,712,000,000) ($318,464,000,000)
G.H.W. Bush 1990-1993 ($1,465,068,000,000) ($366,267,000,000)
Clinton 1994-2001 $1,265,000,000 $158,000,000
G.W. Bush 2002-2005 ($1,314,328,000,000) ($328,582,000,000)

* The monetary figures provided are compiled from yearly data that was inflation adjusted to FY 2005 dollars. E.g. FY 1954 had a deficit of $1,154,000,000 which, when adjusted for inflation, is $8,304,000,000 in FY 2005 dollars. FY 1955 had a deficit of $2,993,000,000 which became $21,644,000,000.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Especially after listening to Pat Buchanan last night, it made me realize how many blunders we have made since the Bush Clinton Bush triumvirate has come into power. We are well on our way to a North American Union and the only reason we got that fence was the November elections. It makes me sick. Ronald Reagan was the last time I truly felt we were a proud sovereign country. I really felt that Bush II and this congress had a unique opportunity to kill the 60s liberals and their bretheren once and for all.
I registered to vote with my son today. He will be 18 on Oct 31st and be able to vote in his 1st election. We will vote REPUBLICAN because we refuse to speed up our demise by voting democrat or abstaining. All we can hope to do is slow it down by voting Republican until we get a President who understands core conservative values.

The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire

When Melanie Sloan and Charles Schumer knew more about the emerging scandal with Rep. Foley than anyone else in the world did back in July? Who are the fools, Hunter?

All that I know is that I'm sick and tired of being played. I've got a stack of correspondence on my desk from Republicans that I've donated real money to, asking me for more. And it seems like the height of foolishness to keep supporting this Congress. They continue to look and act like a bunch of drunken fools, and I won't go along with it any longer.

The dhimmicrats are going to give us???????
Let us see:
Defeat at war, high taxes at home, protection of perverts in Congress, more regulation and suppression of free speech.
If you want that, go for it.

I'm not supporting anyone on the other side of this argument. I have a lot of very valid criticisms of the way this Congress and this Administration have conducted themselves over the past two years, and although I guess you can interpret that as my being for the other side, I'm not. I'm disgusted with this side, but that doesn't mean I'm supporting the other side. I know they'd do even worse, but the problem is that it can *always* get worse. We were supposed to do better, and we haven't. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. We've worked very hard to support Republicans and I feel they don't deserve it right now. I think they've let us all down.

Listen, we've got Specter in the Senate telling us that Senators only work two days a week. Those people should be working three to four days a week at the very least. We're paying them and they're sitting there and doing who knows what? Meanwhile I'm supposed to keep pumping them money? For what? For getting a couple of eminently qualified candidates on the Supreme Court? What a triumph!

Our legislators are a bunch of pork-barreling slackers who have forgotten what they were sent to Washington to do. I'm sick of them, and every scandal that comes out convinces me that my trust in them has been misplaced.

Every conservative vote that sits this one out is a vote for the dhimmis.
There are no sidelines in this fight.
Life is not a choice of ideal vs. bad. It is a choice of the best available. It ahs been so and always will be.
The dhimmis are not offering utopia; they are offering Vietnam v2.0, with more blood and more cost long term to America and our friends.
I vote freedom and victory.

In the buildup to the 2004 election, I got into a lot of arguments with my D friends who were flabbergasted that I was not going to vote Kerry.

I had a fair amount of reasons that I wasn't going to (I'm sure that you don't need me to list them) and they could not believe that I was going to vote for the Libertarian candidate instead.

"That's a vote for Bush!" they told me.

You know what my R friends told me? I was really voting for Kerry.

I still feel that I was really voting for Badnarik.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"I still feel that I was really voting for Badnarik."

And that's why we need instant-runoff voting. It would let us vote our consciences without having to worry about who was actually benefitting from our vote.

This line has been used to describe every election that I can ever remember. When have there ever been sidelines for you? Maybe during the Clinton years?

Is this just another manifestation of the mantra, "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"?

Or is it possible that voicing your disgust with the current situation, and then sitting out an election in protest in not EXACTLY the same as simply voting for the other side?

You hit the nail on the head, Hunter. We can all be disgusted with the mistakes of the Bush administartion and the Republican Congress. But sitting out because you feel like you're being ignored is just petulance. Support those that support US.

Kol, how many of those that you donated to are Conservatives and how many are Republicans? Give anything to the RNC? I am a Conservative first and Republican comes after that. I don't donate to any Tom, Dick or Liberal Republican that comes knocking on my mail box for money. Neither should you. Did those that you help elect, betray you? Don't send em cash next time and help stump for a consservative to replace them. That's how we get things done. Not by stomping off in a huff.

Taking your ball and going home is irresponsible and gives a win to those you despise. I, for one, am in this fight 'til the bitter end. I was counting on you to be there with me.

We've had people like Pejman here, right here on this blog screaming practically at the top of his lungs about how profligate this current bunch of people in Washington are. Bush hasn't used a single veto to stop any of that. He's the reason we're looking at divided government: it's painfully clear that a fully-Republican government can't be trusted with the taxpayers' money!! Meanwhile we've got people sitting on the Hill who just ignore things like the fact that they've got a sexual predator running around at Missing and Exploited Children. How much more lassitude do we need before we wake up? Losing the nuclear football? Forgetting where Cheney's secret hiding place is? It's a disgrace, and we're all sitting here paying taxes to keep the stupid thing rolling along. I thought Republicans were supposed to do better -- they're supposed to be the Professional Managerial Caste, you know, the people who know how to make operations work and work more efficiently. So far, we've got nothing but sprawling bureaucracy and no dent in spending, a war that is going on with no end in sight, and scandal after scandal. How did these people get elected? Why should we give them our money?

Your assumption is based on the basis that a Democratic majority would actually work to reduce deficits and do things which we want.


They have their agenda, but it does not include balancing the budget.. well, unless you call cutting funding for the war in Iraq and raising taxes.

Any more credence to either of them. I don't think the Republicans in Congress are interested in fiscal responsibility, either. Maybe they're interested in rolling up the deficit until the value of our currency goes through the floor, making it seem manageable, though. Then they can write the whole thing off as a big mistake. No harm, no foul.

that JPH, paulseale, and hunter are missing the essence of kowalski's argument. He doesn't seem to be saying that Democrats are any better. He is saying that, on their own, our current batch of republicans in office are running amok with the taxpayers' money. Is this assertion really that controversial?

But what Kowalski's advocating is similar to a guy who's been mugged throwing open the door to his house with a big sign posted "Take whatever you'd like".

but it does not include balancing the budget

...that Clinton had three years of surplus, four if you count 2000. (The House Republicans get some of the credit as well) And what, the debt was ONLY 5 trillion dollars.

Anyway, I as much as I hate the Democrat's Tax and Spend policies, it is way better than the Republican's Borrow and Spend nonsense.

No really I ask why don't you like Borrow and Spend?

I like it, especially when it's the Chinese doing the borrowing. The Yuan is moving towards floating and when that happens it will rise greatly against the dollar. Lets suppose that it appreciates 800% (not unheard of). When that happens, all that debt we have with them will be like paying them back at 12.5 cents on the dollar...

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

reduced the deficit and balanced the budget. Wasn't he a dhimmi?

Forced the matter on him. If the Dems had stayed in power in '94 it wouldn't have happened.

You say the Democrat agenda is to cut funding for the war in Iraq and raise taxes.

OK. I get that. And I agree with you.

We disagree, however, over whether those are good things or not.

Somebody's gotta get the budget back in line - and it sure isn't going to be the current crop of Republicans. They've had unrestrained power to do it if they wanted, and shown absolutely no interest. So if it takes a tax increase and cutting funding for the war, then that's what it takes.

And frankly, I won't be too upset about cutting funding for the war. Bush lost it a long time ago. He had his chance to do it right, but his people wouldn't go balls to the wall and do a proper war. Whether they were too confident, too foolish, or too worried about public opinion back home, they screwed it up. And now it's so far out of control that it's beyond saving. But that's another argument for another day.

The point is, if you want to balance the budget then it's gonna require the Democrats to be elected. They might be the ones to do it - they might not be. But I can gaurantee you that after 2 years under Democrat rule, Republicans will wise up and right the ship - they'll learn how to restrain their spending if that's what's required to re-take the House.

It's like any basketball team - sometimes you need a loss to motivate you

It's hard to run forward and make progress when you have Democrats that have been digging in their heels constantly for the last six years.

We've never had a conservative majority in Congress. Not now, not ever. Sure, we have 55 Senate Republicans, but by the time you count out Chafee, the Maine women, Specter, Graham, and McCain, that's 49 and dropping.

And the situation in the House isn't any better.

Democrats had 40 years to tune the bureaucracy to Their Point Of View. It fights us every step of the way. Even if we had had a majority-conservative Congress at any point in the last 10 years, we'd still have a long way to go in tearing down the liberal-leaning institutions in DC. As it is, we haven't been able to accomplish much in changing the institutions-- especially since we've been fighting a war for the last 5 years.

That doesn't mean it's time to give up. We need a long-term view and plan. We need to target Republicans that aren't conservatives and replace them in the primaries. We've come close with Specter and Chafee; we need to specifically target a couple of RINOs for 2008 to put the fear of the wrath of the voters into the rest of them-- Ted Stevens and Lindsey Graham come to mind.

It's easy to kvetch and moan. It's harder to do something about it.

Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Something they can do something about, they should visit the Heritage Foundation tomorrow and see just what an abortion the Coburn/Obama bill is going to become. In my opinion, it's going to do *nothing* to stop the waste in the federal contracting process: it's a feel good, look good thing for the blogosphere and the participants. The fact is that we're at war but we are running our country as though we weren't -- so that all of the people who usually get paid exorbitant fees in peacetime keep getting paid those exorbitant fees in wartime. But it's a sham. And that's what is bothering me about Iraq -- this country never mobilized to really fight the war.

Kowalski, you've touched on my primary criticism of the Bush administration. They talk the talk about fighting a war on terrorism, again violent Islamic extremism, but they have steadfastly refuse to mobilize the country for war...because that would involve calling on our nation to sacrifice some of our goodies, to suffer a bit -- and that might lose votes.

Instead, the administration has walked on both sides -- trying to conduct wars at no cost (except to the soldiers and their families). In fact, as I think of it, this is exactly the same as Lyndon Johnson's "guns and butter" mantra. I guess we're just going to have to learn the same lesson again, at much greater cost, to us and to the world.

...we must support that declaration by pledging to eachother our lives, fortunes and sacred honor. You are right, this administration has tried to walk both sides, have their war, but without personal cost to themselves.

You can.... waste your summer praying in vain for a savior to rise from these streets. (Sprintsteen)

But I think that the problem is that people *want* liberalism. They want it more than they want conservatism, because it gives them a soft, squishy thing to fall back on. Here in Massachusetts, it's almost complete anathema to talk about Conservative principles now -- it's something that I think has gone out of the vocabulary of the American people.

I just think they're going to have to ride the roller-coaster until they're sick of it. I think a lot of people really do Love Big Brother. Here in MA the people have gotten so used to the idea of the government protecting their interests at their expense that I don't think they can ever be cured of it until the country itself goes bankrupt. The seniors here aren't going to vote against it, and neither will the single women who want to raise their children with the help of the government dole. And neither will the immigrants who live here with a portion of their incomes coming from the taxpayer. It's a continuous process, and frankly I think it has to go completely bankrupt before people are going to reject it.

or recant your heresy and stay.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Come now, Tbone. It is the role of conservatives to see the world as it is, not as we wish it were, no? And certainly kowalski has stated the cold, hard truth of the matter - particularly in the People's Republic, I mean Commonwealth, of Massachusetts, who is all but certain to annoit Deval Patrick Governor in about 34-days in spite of the fact that the same voters who perfer him nearly 2-1 over the current Lt. Gov disagree with Patrick by an even bigger margin on most issues.

Go figure.

Has it occured to you that this is precisely why GWB is a "big government conservative"? And if you don't think he's smart enough to have figured that out, don't you think The Rove is?

Kowalski never suggested that liberalism was perferable - that indeed would have been heresy. But from increased entitlements to expanded compulsary education to sex-offender registries and on and on there is precisely zero evidence that small-government conservatism is something the electorate actually wants at this point.

So it comes down to this - who better to run the welfare state?

A lousy choice to be sure, but that is unfortunately the choice we have before us.

"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Because I'm going to tell you right now that over the past three weeks I've been talking with people in Washington, D.C. who are intimately involved in the federal contracting process for our military. And guess what? The people who are receiving the lion's share of the money are the people who least deserve it -- the people sitting behind desks in Washington as consultants who are absolutely coasting on their six-figure salaries while our guys over in Iraq get turned into hamburger and wind up at Walter Reed. And Coburn/Obama is going to do nothing about that. You want to talk about how injust this war has been? Have a trip through Washington one day and talk to some consultants in military contracting, who are eating at the best restaurants and living high on the hog while people are dying in Iraq.

shall ever be, it seems. The word "shoddy" remains in our vocabulary from the Civil War. In those days, "shoddy" described the short wool fibers that wouldn't hold in the weaving process and were swept up from the floor. Some enterprising guy with friends in the War Department got a contract to make Union uniforms and found a way to press that stuff so that it would look like real wool fabric - until it got wet; then it fell apart. It was said of Lincoln's Sec. War, Simon Cameron, that he would steal a hot stove if he could find a way to get his arms around it. Every war going back to the Phonecians has brought about charges of war profiteering, and we can only go back to them because they're the first ones who could write.

I'm not defending it, and we should do everything we can to control it, but when government spends money, it is distributed by political rather than economic or market drivers. That's just the way it is; if you have government, you will have waste and corruption. The only question is how much and how much you're willing to try to do something about it.

The real problem is that Republicans cannot unilaterally disarm, to use a phrase from long ago. If we don't feed the beast, the other guys will. Whomever solves this one will assure his/her place in the Pantheon.

In Vino Veritas

"Unilaterally disarm"

I'm going to use that one.

Your war, you lost it. Your spending like a drunken sailor, pay your bills. I think it has been Hastert protecting the pervert. Bush has done more to suppress free speech and personal freedoms than any other sitting president.

What, do you live in Superman's Bizarro universe?

I'm sorry Kowalski, but don't expect me (or any other conservative who can see the whole picture) to jump off the bandwagon with you. While no one here claims that Republicans presently in office have made the conservative base happy, to ignore the accomplishments of the last six years betrays a blindness to the ferocious opposition they have faced, both from the Democrats and the MSM, as well as an inability to see the bigger picture.

While we all decry the lack of progress on spending, immigration and the like, chances are that history will take a far more positive view of this president and this Congress that you do. Two solid conservative Scotus justices, tax cuts that have fueled a solid economy, aggressivness in the GWOT among other things will be seen in the long run as having done more to advance the conservative cause then is currently recognized. All this in the face of opposition that borders on insanity and absolute hatred.

So feel free to do/vote/contribute what and to whom you'd like, but if you think you're advancing your ideals/beliefs by copping out instead of trying to build on previous success, you're very much mistaken.

I'm opting out. There's a difference. This Congress has been a disgrace to me and everyone associated with it. I'm not giving another dime or another ounce of energy to any of them. Until this point I think they've relied on us as "the farm." Sitting here in the blogosphere, defending them no matter how awful they were. Well, I've had it. I'm not interested in working for nothing to defend people who are directly contradicting everything we elected them to do, and especially not when they're letting sexual predators run the works over at Missing and Exploited Children despite having plenty of knowledge that something was wrong. Straw that broke the camel's back, and all.

especially not when they're letting sexual predators run the works over at Missing and Exploited Children despite having plenty of knowledge that something was wrong.

Please back this statement up. Again, the e-mails thenselves could easily be explained as overly friendly. to accuse someone of being a predator based on those is irresponsible. Read them yourself instead of relying on the biased MSM.

It's a free country so feel free to do what you want, but I think you;re being amazingly shortsighted and narrow-focused.

Based on the emails that I've read, and especially the IM transcripts that I've read, that anyone who is trying to defend Foley on the basis of the "innocuousness" of his emails is going down the drain faster than the proverbial dead frog at the bottom of the fishtank. The guy started creeping people out more than a year ago and if people on the Hill weren't interested in how creepy he was, it's their fault. People on our side got those messages and they absolutely cannot claim they didn't. They can claim they were distracted, they can claim they were working on other things, they can claim that they were worried about their own electoral hides, but they can't claim, to me, that they had no intimation that this guy was a total weirdo. His emails were so weird that anyone looking at them and knowing that they came from a 50-something year old man directed toward an underage Page should have had fireworks and alarms and great big gongs going off in their heads.

And what's even more disgusting is that people like Melanie Sloan and Charles Schumer apparently caught on to this before anyone in the House Leadership was willing to confront him directly about it.

Let me put it to you this way: The day I have to rely on Melanie Sloan to tell me something I didn't know about such an important matter involving someone like Foley in the House of Representatives is the day I know that the mainspring has come loose from the axle in the Republican House of Representatives. Something is totally screwy there, and it should *never* have happened.

Again by JPH

Please cite your sources. The only e-mails that were known to the Republican leadership ARE pretty innocuous, which is why the Florida newspapers didn't run with them. Here are the quotes from Hastert on this very point.

best light possible for him.

It was his job to investigate *any* problem, and that must include working with the House Page Board overseeing the Pages, yet two of the three members (one of whom is R) were not informed of the problem. This, to me (well, other than underage boys being preyed upon, obviously), the root of the problem Hastert is in:

Charleston Daily Mail -- Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., says she was not told about suggestive e-mails that a Florida congressman sent to a 16-year-old former Capitol page, even though she is one of three representatives who oversee the page program. [...]

Several high-ranking House Republicans have known about the e-mails for months, including Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the House Page Board.

Late last year, Shimkus met with Foley about the e-mails. But Shimkus never told Capito or the board's other member, Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., about them until Friday, according to all three.

"There's only three of us on the page board. I feel that we should have been informed," Capito said. "I'm absolutely disgusted by what I'm hearing. I was caught totally unaware." [...]

Capito said she would have been very concerned if she had read those e-mails.

"I don't think it would pass the sniff test," she said. "Even asking those questions -- that is not normal between a 52-year-old adult and a 16-year-old. It's not like they're family friends or anything. I think it would raise some serious questions. But I wasn't given that opportunity."

Late last year, Shimkus and former House Clerk Jeff Tandahl met privately with Foley to talk about the e-mails, but did not tell the other House Page Board members or launch an investigation.

If not, read them. They are not suggestive at all, maybe a bit over-friendly. To accuse a Congressman (or anybody else) of being a pervert based on those is irresponsible. Hastert handled this no different then anyone else would. All the righteous indignation against Hastert is Monday-morning hand-wringing.

Perhaps you should read my comment more closely. Firstly, I did not call anyone a pervert. Secondly, I was questioning why it was, no matter how minor, not refered to the Page Board that is RESPONSIBLE for the Page program.

1) Rep. Capito is saying what she's saying NOW in order not to be accused of being "soft on perverts".Had she seen only the e-mails that Hastert saw and accused Foley based on those, then yes, that would have been irresponsible.

2)The e-mails were referred to the chairman of the board overseeing the page program, Rep. Shimkus, who took the neccessary action based upon what he saw in them. Had he seen the IM's he obviously would have acted differently. Read the e-mails, and only the e-mails, yourself and see if you would have acted differently then the Republican leadership did.

If you've read my comment, you would know that my point, my sole point, is that this should have gone to the House Page Board, 3 people, not one. Yes, Rep. Shimkus is the chairman of the board, but this sounds like a problem that needed to be referred to the full board, or, at the very least, Shimkus needed to have fully informed the others of the conversations and action he took.

Talk about irresponsibility, from someone who has spent a lot of time in corporate management, the way Shimkus acted unilaterally is not how someone acts when they're part of a board or committee. And Hastert is ultimately responsible for the all the Boards and Committees following correct procedures.

We don't have the option of moving to an alternative universe where everyone is a true blue conservative.

The fact is that true blue conservatives are a minority of the voting population and always have been and probably always will be.

No one ever said that the Republicans were 100 percent true blue conservatives. If they were, the Republicans would win the same 0.8 percent of the vote that the Libertarians win in elections.

The real question for true blue conservatives in this election and in every other election is how can we maximize the effectiveness of our votes, money and campaign energy? I would like to believe that there is some viable alternative to the Republican party for true blue conservatives.

But there isn't!

Just as there wasn't a viable alternative for militant anti-slavery people during the Lincoln Administration.

Democracy is always, always disappointing because your voice is only one of a hundred million voices. Expect to be disappointed and only be surprised when you something happens that you approve of.

As for me, I like the fact that the Republicans cut taxes and stimulated the economy. Bush inherited a recession and now the economy is growing. I like the fact that we recently passed the Detainee legislation. I like the fact that Roberts and Alito are on the US Supreme Court.

Are there policy areas where I am disappointed with the Republicans and Bush? Yes.

I wish Iraq were as peaceful and tolerant as Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I wish all Republican Congressmen (and Congresswomen) behaved in a respectable manner.

I wish. I wish. I wish.

But anyone who hasn't been living in a cave knows that politics is full of disappointment.

So, I will vote a straight Republican ticket because the Republicans are marginally better than the Democrats.

"Sitting here in the blogosphere, defending them no matter how awful they were."

We just become easily manipulated dupes if we don't think independently and critically. If we become nothing more than cheerleaders we may feel like we're "supporting the team", but we weaken the team over time.

Its hard to say our team needs to be fixed, but its easier than letting it go on so broken.

And turning Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid loose with the gavel is going to fix it.

Let me guess, public education?

I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan

Please tell me how you think Coburn/Obama is going to affect the incredible waste that the military procurement and contracting process represents when the people who are likely going to be paid (in a completely unbelivable, but utterly predictable course of double-dipping) are the people who *already* control the contracting process?

Who are the fools, hunter? Are you going to show up at the Heritage Foundation tomorrow and explain how the blogosphere really got something done, or are you going to sit back and conclude that they got *played* because they thought they were so very, very powerful? Do you know how the federal contracting process works? Or where that $15 million for Coburn/Obama is going to go except to the people who already earn their money by giving people information about the federal contracting process?

Some victories, these. Who are the fools, man?

Welcome to the real world, Kowalski. If you're just finding out that 1) There is corruption/semi-corruption all over the place, or 2)you think that it has just started in the last six years, well then, I sympathise with the rude awakening you've received.

The issues that bug you are good ones, important ones, issues that need to be worked on and advocated constantly and every success, no matter how minor, must be bulit on. Cutting and running never works.

PS.. I am willing to predict that if the Democrats win control of Congress, it won't take long for your next post to appear with a very big mea culpa on this one. If you think it's bad now, wait till the Dems take over.

Don't vote red. Don't contribute red. Doesn't mean you can't discuss the issues with us. I've been know to vote 3rd party from time to time. If you like the ideals stick around and talk about them. If not... You’ll be missed.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

it is a lot easier. One thing we don't need are people who quit when things just aren't their way. I have seen this type of "poor despondent me" from you before. Get some help for it.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Sad by Finrod

I believe that the main and sole strategy of the Democrats over the past six years has been to descend into the muck as far and as fast as they can, and to drag the Republicans down with them.

Their goal? To get people like kowalski here to abandon the Republican Party. If enough do, then the moonbats become a majority simply via attrition.

kowalski, I'm not blaming you or speaking negatively of you. Every one of us has a breaking point, and I'm not going to criticize you for reaching yours. However, I do believe that if enough follow your lead, we will lose Congress and the Presidency, and the situation in the world will become a much darker shade of grey.

Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

If kowalski thinks the dhimmicrats are going to get this naiton moving forward, the DNC has succeeded in all their slander, lies, cheating, MSM echo chamber, and convergnece with Al Qaeda.
I refuse to join the DNC in dhimmitude.

I think they're going to get this nation moving in the wrong direction at breakneck speed. Unfortunately I see the Republican party as instantiated in the House and Senate right now as helping them do it.

I rarely contribute my words to this site, but read as much as my time allows.
I went back to read about 20 of your comments and now it really surprises me that you are what seems to be 'giving up'.

And I will not continue to support that betrayal. Until it is corrected, and this Party can be legitimately proud of itself again, I abstain.

Without people standing up for and working hard for what they feel is wrong with the party, HOW can there be any change made?
The party WILL get past this latest incident-and this Foley incident DOES NOT represent the MAJORITY of good and decent Republicans who are working their hardest for the American people.

Sometimes leaving a party is justified. Rampant corruption would be a legitimate reason to and I sympathize with Kow's feelings. The difference is that you go somewhere and make a difference there. Reagan left the democrats after FDR and we all cheer his decision... Where will you make a difference Kow?

How do you think I feel living in IL? Where the two major candidates for Governor can only say,"oh yeah but I'm not as corrupt as you". It makes one sick.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

what bothers me is when people like 'Kow' throw in the towel.
It could have a domino affect-
and knock down even more who feel like he does , that there is no hope or other options.
I just hate to give up, believing that the Republican party IS going to change for the BETTER. It HAS to.

If everyone refuses to throw in the towel then how would you expect anything to change? If they can do what they've done and get rewarded for it what do you think we'll get going forward?

Personally, I'm pissed. I'm very disappointed and don't feel like I have anywhere to turn. The news out of Iraq today was just horrible.

voting in the primaries. It can be very useful.

Umm, maybe fight for it.

My husband was just in Iraq two days ago and goes there on a very regular basis and has now for the past 3 years. He is quite pleased with the progress he sees.
Does he hate it when he flies home a plane load of flag draped caskets? You bet. But in the end, he knows it is worth it for freedom. And Thank God he and the rest of our troops have the intestinal fortitude to keep up the good fight. Even for the lily livered like you. And despite those with a fetish for young boy-men.

Quit your whining and do something to make a difference. Your alternative is to succumb to defeat at the hands of those that seek to destroy our way of life.

I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan

Blogs and Parties are separate and should remain so, even if the blog is dedicated to the advancement of a particular party and it's ideals.

It seems to me that the only good faith, good conscience act you can take is participation at a site like this. After all, by the very act of doing so, you are promoting your republican party ideal, rather than the current republicans per se.

Not that I agree with your overall position, but merely to point out that, even assuming you are correct about the state of the party, departing Redstate seems to be counter to your position.


What we had to do with any of this.

(And please correct me if I'm wrong, Kowalski!)

I'd say that he had a "final straw" moment related to the various... well I don't want to say "defenses" of Foley... how about "responses" to the whole Foley thing. People arguing, seemingly in earnest, that Foley was not a pedophile because, after all, he was going after 16 year olds. People arguing, apparently in earnest, that they questioned the timing of these revelations. I'm sure I could dig up a handful of other responses that would also merit a "seemingly in earnest" tag.

This, in itself, probably isn't what did it.

There's probably also the immigration debate from a few months back. There's the whole magnitude of the spending issue. There's the whole Iraq War thing. There's the tendency of the leadership to do stuff like tie internet gambling bills to port security bills. (I'd list a few more issues that strike me as likely to have bugged him but at that point I'd *REALLY* be doing some serious projection.) In every case, for every issue above, there are more than a few serious issues that a serious conservative can have in opposition and do so in good faith.

And, I'd wager, when he'd see some of his issues and objections brought up, he'd see them shot down with arguments similar to those in the various Foley threads.

If I was to make a comparison to the whole Clinton thing, I'd make it to the pardon of Marc Rich. There were Clintonites who defended every single thing the man did. Whitewater was a smear! The travel office was a smear! The Vince Foster accusations are smears! The bimbo eruptions were smears! Paula Jones was asking for it! She should have been flattered! Monica Lewinsky is a stalker! Her accusations of her relationship with Clinton is a smear! Okay, maybe it happened, but Linda Tripp is a (redacted)! Her story is a smear! And so on and so forth. And then the pardon of Marc Rich happened.

And I saw so many of Clinton's most strident defenders deflate. It's like they aged 8 years in 20 minutes. "What's the deal with the Marc Rich thing?" "I don't know, man. All presidents do dumb pardons. Republicans do it too. Ford pardoned... ah, I don't have the heart for this anymore. I don't know man."

These are people who questioned the motives of people who claimed to be feminists but were upset about Clinton's inappropriate passes at subordinates. They must be Republican shills. They must hate women to criticize Clinton at a time when Republicans are supporting Paula Jones. They must want a Republican in office who would turn the clock back 100 years and have women go back to back-alley abortions or force them to be barefoot and pregnant. Don't they understand exactly what is at stake here?... And then the Marc Rich pardon happened. And they were stuck wondering if they had been played for fools for the last 8 years. Wondering if all of the victories that Clinton had (and he had more than a few) were really victories for liberalism and/or the democrats or if they were merely Clinton's own personal victories.

But, I hear you say, "I fail to see what we had to do with any of this."

Well, it's not *YOU* as in Leon H Wolf. It's not you as in Leon and Moe and Ben and Mark and Adam and and and. It's more that he's seen any number of troubling things and seen them discussed and, in pretty much every case (including ones that you'd think would be pretty cut and dried), he has seen people come to... well, I don't want to say "defend"... let's say "respond" to the issues with something like "let's change the subject and let's talk about how the democrats are worse". Of course, it's never the same people doing this. There's a handful (and always a minority, might I point out) that did so for the Foley thing. There was a different handful who did so for the immigration thing. There's a different handful who do so on the spending thing. And so on and so forth.

And then the Foley thing happened.

Anyway, that's the answer to your question. (Again, Kowalski, please correct me if I made any stupid assumptions.)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

a long time ago that the only thing you can truly rely on them to do is eventually disappoint and disillusion you. You step back, draw a deep breath, and dive back in. Even when they err, if they err in the direction of the enemy, something good has happened. Hope you change your mind.

In Vino Veritas

I enjoyed reading you. I do hope you will eventually come back and work to restore our party back to the moral high ground it should be occupying.

I have to say that I am extremely disappointed and if this Foley matter plays out the way I am afraid it might - disillusioned as well. But there is nowhere to go for us and the Republican party is our only hope. The alternative is so much worse.

We are probably going down to an incredible defeat but we are not the politicians who made it happen. We have to be part of the solution because who will stand up instead of us?

Take care.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

The blogosphere is the best chance for the voice of the little guy to be heard. It's what called BS on Rathergate, and it's gotta be making the Republican (so-called) leadership in Congress quake in their boots.

Most of us on this site share a common belief that civility, morality, ethics and conservative personal values should ideally shape individual behaviors, and we support political leaders and movements who are, or who appear to, share our ideals. Nowadays, most of them are found in the Republican Party.

Biggest Republican disappointments: Mr. Hastert, who has a bully pulpit, but not the vaguest clue of what to do with it (besides protecting Congressional privilege above all else); Senator Stevens, who has thumbed his nose at the people's right to know who is wasting their money; and former Congressmen Gingrich and Livingston, who could not hold President Clinton to high standards of conduct because of pecadilloes of their own.

In other words, I'm a Republican second, a conservative first. I am not yet giving up on the Republican Party, largely because, given the alternatives of voting Democrat, Independent, or staying home, voting Republican remains the best choice.

Godspeed, kowalski.

that I resigned from the party a long time ago. That, like what many have said here, doesn't preclude membership and participation here at RS. If the title page were to say "Republican News and Community" instead of saying "Conservative News and Community", I guess I would have had to resign from RS when I resigned from the GOP. As a Conservative, if you want to make your political case in a community, you have little chance of anything other than your head exploding if you were to try this at DKOS. At least here, there are people listening, and it is a place to get ideas on "action" that can be tried locally and nationally. And, for eternal optimists like myself, I keep hoping I can contribute to a movement that brings conservatism back into American Politics...this seems like a decent place to start. If not here, where then? I am all ears.

I have no intention of wringing my hands and worrying about you leaving or staying or being mad or not mad-you have earned my respect here over the years such that your personal choices are respected and I bid you a fond farewell if that is what you need for your sanity. But, I wish you would stay, and I accept you deciding not to...I also wish others here so quick to b-slap you for being mad would lighten up a bit...I don't think your anger is going to make you vote Dem...I suspect they are worried you will not vote at all. I guess no vote is a Dem vote in the eyes of some...I guess you'll have to make that choice on Nov. 7...

For me, well, an R vote FOR the gwot and AGAINST a Pelosi/Reid 110th is all I got this year...and this will have to be good enough...for now.

Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.

I will miss your blogging and replies to blogs. I am confused from reading this one with exactly what your final message is. You start out by quoting some winer dude about how it is not safe for now to vote republican. Later in the blog you encourage people to vote their conscience. Haystack quit the party, and he does not write blogs to be a cheerleader for the republicans. Would you reconsider your decision about blogging on this site with Haystack as an example role model to follow?

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

not being a registered member of the GOP takes all the strain out of it. I have to vote, I have nothing but R to vote for, but I get to kick them every step of the way leading to '08. My next 2 yrs are dedicated to sucking the conservatives among us out of the muck and back up to the surface, come what may.

Kowalski, I hope you go into political "rehab" and come out smokin' on the other side with us Conservative independents. We could use your talents to kick some Nov. 8 butt, running up to '08.

Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.

I live it. I've never been a partisan; only a policy advocate who enjoys discussing and debating ideas and pondering state of affairs with friends of all stripes. Supporting a party has never been a motive. I cannot. The cognitive dissonance needed to stand behind a party is too much.

The closest I come to loyal support is for certain individuals who the integrity I appreciate like Congressman Ron Paul does.

I applaud you conviction. But don't stay out it. Support advocacy groups like Cato, the American Taxpayers Union and other such groups who fight for ideas you support with loyalty only to priniciples.


Don't tread on me.

We can't have, or claim to own, the moral high ground when people like Melanie Sloan at CREW had the explicit knowledge of these emails before anyone in Republicandom thought they were important enough.

There are still a few very, very important questions to be answered in this investigation. The first of those is how Melanie Sloan came to know of those emails and how ABC was informed of the transcripts of the instant messages. Neither of those questions have been answered definitively. The only reed that I will extend to Speaker Hastert is that I hope in the fullness of this investigation that those facts will become known, because they're extraordinarily important. It's extraordinarily imporant how it was that Melanie Sloan at CREW became involved with this case, and exactly when that involvement began.

Perhaps the Constitution Party is where you should be my friend. I certainly agree more with their platform than with the Republican one. If I just didn't feel that voting for them would allow the Democrats to gain a majority...

ugghhh. They are too isolationist/protectionist for me.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

you know I respect your opinion and your right do to whatever you please.

And I think you know that I share much of your same frustration.

But I will be damned if I will let the bad apples run me out of my party.

Nothing worth fighting for is ever easy. Nor, is it free.

My husband is currently on foreign soil doing his thing again for the second time in 30 days. He is tired, he is weary. And he is scared to death of what the future holds come Nov. 7th and a possible democratic take over in the House of Reps. If for no other reason than that alone, I will stay and fight until the bitter end so that I will know I did my part.

Now is not the time to throw in the towel. And frankly, I think you are tougher than that. But, in the end, know I still respect you and all you have contributed.

The Romans had their own versions of old men having fun with young boys. The problem existed 2,000 years ago. It will be present 2,000 years from now, provided the human race still exists. The problems begin to multiply when their colleagues start to presume its no big deal and go on with business as usual.
Bind him, wrap him with chain, gather some concrete blocks tightly around him with the chain and toss him overboard with the salutation "Good Riddance" and move on. That's more than the other guys would do. I present you with none other than Barney Frank (D-Ma).
Good politics involves a little bit of triangulation, co- opting the other guys stock in trade, leaving him with only the option of standing there wildly flapping his arms.
The last Republican that held fast to conservative fiscal policy with an looming recession was Herbert Hoover and we all remember what his fate was. George H.W. Bush was content to sit there letting the Fed work its fiscal magic by pushing on the end of a string. The inevitable recovery eventually arrived as a result of the Fed's efforts, "Bubba " took the credit for it. The Fed's decision making process, its actions, and the economy's subsequent recovery were all the result of the Bush the elder's nominees to the Fed.
We are historically standing on a knife edge. The opposition's program for National Security is simply classic, regurgitated Neville Chamberlain, Peace at Any Price, Better Red than Dead. The Dem's penchant for gutting Defense appropriations is what brought us here, their inability, when confronted with a major threat, to take the hard, necessary, substantial military action is why we have that large gaping hole in the "Sidewalks of New York". Allowing the disloyal opposition to gain control of defense policy would force us take up the Bonabos' monkey's defense tactic. Most Democrats would heartily approve of that, but humanity deserves better than being relegated to trying to find three surviving pregnant females in order to continue the species.

Instead of fighting to make a difference in your political party, you simply quit? And not only quit, but embarass your fellow RS bloggers by making your resignation public for everyone to witness?

Kowalski, can you point me to the section of your Politics 101 textbook where it said politics was easy?

No one said politics was easy or perfect. You simply do what you can to make a difference. You helped create this great conservative blog and now you would abandon it because things didn't turn out perfect? If you wanted to quit, you should have quit quietly. Your public resignation was a slap in the face to everyone here.

Having said that, I honestly hope you would reconsider. Use this blog to steer politics instead of react to it. This "blog" has such potential. But, it needs an unwavering vision to guide it.

Calling Kowalski a coward is unjustifies and uncalled for. You need to apologize.

...commenters and diarists, it is in fact a stretch to say that kowalski is a 'blogger' here. We tend to use that as a synonym for Contributors, or people with front page privileges.

So, we're not particularly embarrassed. "We", in fact, generally don't have much of a consensus opinion on anything.


The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

that broke the camels back eh? Wow! You must be nieve or totally unrealistic in your expectations. To err is human to forgive is devine. We all fall short of the glory of God. So it took a lousy sex scandel to finally push you over the edge. I say so long fair-weather friend.

Kowalski selfaggrandizment is NOT becoming.

You're likely to find yourself with less than 50% of the popular vote.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Generally when people say they're posting their final post of Redstate, they don't post 13 more times.

I enjoyed your writing very much.

Pay no heed to the blowhards who feel the need to insult you over your decision.
To call them "misguided" would be too complimentary.

Take care.

And I think people could consider this a Parthian shot, but I'm going to say it again, anyway:

I don't consider the blogosphere to be compatible with capitalism. At their most fundamental level, blogs are Socialist: they're free, anyone can can contribute, and they're a tremendous "community-building" exercise but not very good at raising money or providing exclusive access to information that people are willing to pay for. The blogosphere is at the very root a fundamental repudiation of capitalism, and it was brought to you by people at Harvard, who have very good salaries thanks to tenure. But for everyone else who lives in the real world, the blogosphere is a time sink and a money waster. It really irks me that Republicans and Conservatives have tried to believe that blogs, based on a free-access model, would actually be something worthwhile in the long run. Nothing you give away for free ever is.

And with that, I would like to say good evening to you all.

If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Good bye and good luck. It's been nice having you here.

Friends that don't support your decisions, or worse, insult you, really aren't friends...

An old friend once told me that if your customer leaves, either you are both better off, or he will be back. When he comes back, he's yours. I hope you come back some day, and I for one will forget all about this blog entry.

I think you're wrong about the blogosphere and capitalism. More precisely, you're asking the wrong question. The blogosphre is not about capital; it's about ideas. I don't have time to do this justice, but some day, when you're a bit older, you may understand.

Capitalism isn't everything. It's the best way to run an economy, but there's more to the world than the sum of its goods and services. Does blogging improve someone's life? Does my comment lift a sagging spirit, squelch a stupid idea, or inspire a young mind?

"You can't take it with you" isn't just a saying. The only thing that matters is what you leave behind; that's either DNA, or it's ideas, a reputation, and memories. So off with you, go forth and make someone's life.

My best, always.

Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

I understand that you may be frustrated at politics. Aren't we all at times? If you need a break from blogging, you are entitled to take it. (Come to think about it, the tone of your main post has a touch of burnout about it, so a break may be just what the doctor ordered.)

But this thing about the RS blog being a surrender to creeping socialism is nuts. RS is a great experiment in building a community of people with a common interest - the broad principles of the Republican party. It's not supposed to be a substitute for a job or an investment portfolio. It has the drawbacks of a community, too - fractious neighbors and plenty of disputes about the specifics. So what? We all give time to our communities without expecting financial recompense - school boards, neighborhood associations, churches, civic groups and the like. And there is no shortage of conflicts there, either.

So the members of RS give up a little of their time and creative energy to promote their community's interests. That is not socialism but good old fashioned civic virtue!

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
- 1 John 2:19 (King James Version)


Abstain, that will show them, sure it will. Someone explain to me how sitting the election out will accomplish anything except elect Peloser.

Let's see, Peloser and her boys want to do what ... umm
raise taxes
stop the fence
the all important impeach Bush
defund the war
stop the fight on terrorists and send in Janet Reno(ok made that up, but it's about right)
withdraw troops to the pacific so they can be ready at a moments notice to do what?

Help me did I miss any of the luscious liberal agenda?

I think I understand where you're coming from. "We're not the Democrats" has increasingly been the selling point of the Republican incumbency, and the lackluster achievements of the present Congress contrast unhappily with the "Class of '94". Watching the House leadership run itself aground over some horribly misguided sense of "collegiality" does nothing to raise one's enthusiasm. I've enjoyed your mercurial and passionate personality here, and I don't think you'll be away from us for as long as you may now think. Until then, all the best, and success to you in whatever you do.

I think you're a fool. Since I joined Redstate two years ago I've seen a lot of "goodbye cruel world" diaries. But never once have I seen one that didn't list a single tangible reason for saying goodbye to the said cruel world.

Now I gather, Kowalski, from your comments in this strand, that the Foley matter has pushed you over the edge. If that is the reason, my friend, it's about the dumbest reason to give up a fight I've ever seen. If you honestly believe that Foley's GOP colleagues have been covering for him for the last several years, you are gullible, and that's all there is to it. What could possibly be the reason to cover for him? Political advantage? Bah! The risk they now run of losing the House because of him is too great. Personal loyalty? Bah, and Bah again! If there is one virtue Republicans are not afflicted with it's personal loyalty (example, Harriet Miers).

So what you're left with is the fact that you're leaving Redstate, AND the GOP because there happened to be a pervert in the GOP House caucus. If that's your standard, your bound to be disappointed my friend. But consider the alternatives. Do you really want Edward Kennedy, who last year endorsed a "hate crimes" bill endoresed by NAMBLA, to run the Judiciary Comittee.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

5 by JPH

there seems to be more to Kowalski's post than what meets the eye.

I see you are President of RS. Are you going to resign from that role? Are you simply not posting anymore or are you resigning from the RS corporation?

of Redstate.
The President of Redstate is Mike Krempasky.
My guess is that he won't be leaving anytime soon, but he probably is knocking back a few beers to relieve some tension brought on by this latest round of crap. I know I need to.

I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

I agree with everything you've said. I agree with your conclusions. I just disagree with your solution. Drop the -R. But continue giving us your pearls of wisdom... RedState will miss you.

You say that you feel shame, but where do you go from here? If the Republicans have been far from perfect, the Democrats would be a disaster.

The liberal websites like the Lost Kos don't really like the Democrats, at least not the elected Democrats; they accept them (with the notable exception of Joe Lieberman) because the Democrats are at least closer to what they want. And they are trying to change the Democrats, to move them leftward, into something closer to what they desire.

Well, if the GOP isn't perfect, there is a lot better chance to make it better by being part of the base than by abandoning it.

There are, of course, third parties, many of which provide some sense of emotional satisfaction, in that they can be purer philosophically, but they can be purer philosophically because they aren't capable of, or even concerned with, doing something radical like actually winning elections.

Common Sense Political Thought

It gives a forum to prove that certain key issues are being ignored by the major parties. People should vote this way when the major parties are failing the public's wants. When the major parties take note of it, they respond. But it takes a sizeable amount of people to make the vote to get the issue heard.

Don't tread on me.

Actually, I think there's no such thing.

Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

He is opting out of vigorous support of the Republican Party because they no longer act to further Conservative goals in government. And of course many people here have counterargued with the weak half-measures that Republicans have actually taken over the last several years.

I've said before that President Bush made a decision early in 2003 to stake his Presidency on the proposition that the errors of the mid and late 1930s should not be repeated. While the jury is still resolutely out on the key questions related to this (Should he have done it? Is he succeeding?), it's plainly true that all the other priorities have been thrown overboard. There's only so much bandwidth and political capital in a leadership, and we Conservatives have seen our agenda wither as a result.

So if a lot of people agree with Kowalski, what will happen? Well, we're going to enter a (possibly long) era of rule by Democrats, in which Conservative values will be systematically routed from the Federal government, and the earth salted to keep them from coming back for a very long time. This probably isn't what Kowalski wants to see happen, but he's clearly lost his appetite for the deadening and thankless twilight struggle we're engaged in today. Better Red than dead, I suppose.

If Kowalski and those like him carry the day in the coming election, the only real hope for a conservative future that I can see is for a new leader of Reagan's caliber to emerge. Ideas alone, even good ones, even ones that command the assent of popular majorities, seem to be no match for sustained ideological attack from the "commanding heights of our culture," in an age when opinions are evaluated in great measure by how beautiful their presenters appear on television. Apart from President Bush (now embattled on all sides), our elected leadership has been completely lacking in moral courage and vision. And this is exactly the kind of non-leadership we will cement in place for a generation if we hand the reins to the Democrats this year and in 2008.

But the problem with great leaders is that their emergence is serendipitous. And there is no one even potentially of Reagan's stature in sight at the moment.

Kowolski aka blue gene, I am now officially pissed at you.
Thanks so much for turning all the idiot trolls and sorry mobies loose on here.

E-mail me if you want an apology.

I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan

I keep going back to Lord Acton's thought, "Power corrupts; abusolute power corrupts absolutely", and the fact that the GOP has controlled both Congress and the White House for six years.

Having some opposition helps keep people honest. Checks to power don't just thwart the people in power, they force them to seriously consider another point of view.

If I could, I would vote for Gridlock every time.

would you like to go for double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?

For someone who has been a member here for almost a year you should know better...

the fact that the GOP has controlled both Congress and the White House for six years.

Majority Leader Daschle and Jumpin' Jim Jeffords ring any bells?

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

Look, gay men making friendly overtures to boys stinks. I am glad we can all say that now without facing cacophony of voices calling us out as a homophobes. I'll be even more glad when I can securely say that gay men making overtures to me stinks.

As the Miami Herald indicates, things haven't always been that simple, and that is why that 'watchdog' didn't bark. The precedents Hastert had to consider included Rep. (D) Gerry Studds who served 6 more terms after actually having had sexual relations with pages and the Boy Scouts who were condemned for barring gays from being scout masters.

It stinks now and it stinks then. I definitely want Hastert to have done much more, but it isn't right to claim that the motivations which constrained him were purely about retaining an (R) in Foley's district. We the people need to provide the moral force that allows our leaders to stand up against the PC onslaught. When we had a dynamic Speaker, he became a burned out lightning rod. So we get a bland one and he doesn't take a stand. So now we are going to give up?

I am sorry man but I think that is just making a choice to lose.
John E.

"Where were you, and what were you doing, when Rush opened the October 22, 1992 radio show? On that day, he made a shocking announcement: "I have decided to endorse the candidacy of Bill Clinton for president." We rolled the entire opening to this classic program on the 15th Anniversary program August 1, 2003 - and followed it with a caller segment from later in that very show."

I hope you'll pull back the football at the last second. THAT would be a Kos Kids thread worth linking, especially if kandy k komments.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I don't think so. I don't think that it was the original accused sin that made Kowalski upset, as much as it was the various defenses given for Kowalski.

"Kowalski didn't do this!" would have been an appropriate defense, I suppose.

"What Kowalski is accused of doing is no big deal!" is something that came up again and again when, let's face it, if what Kowalski was accused of was what Kowalski actually did, it was a big deal.

I mean, let's go back and look at many of the defenses given for Foley when it was still assumed that the events actually happened.

Read through those again. That'll make anybody disspirited.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.


Anyway, pretend that I put "Foley" where it would make sense to put "Foley" and "Kowalski" where it would make sense to put "Kowalski".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan had a huge deficit. He had secret operations going on that led to hearings and trials. During his administration a GOP congressman got caught doing hanky-panky with a page.

I am angry with the GOP, but on their worst day they're better than the Dems. The Dems kill unborn babies. They want to be able to kill the elderly and infirmed. They want to turn over our sovereignty to the United Nations. They want France and Germany to decide when and how we can defend ourselves. They want to take our money anyway they can to use for social experiments.

I don't know you from a hole in the wall but I do know that you aren't nor were you ever a conservative when you make statements like...

"[B]logs are Socialist: they're free, anyone can can contribute, and they're a tremendous "community-building" exercise but not very good at raising money or providing exclusive access to information that people are willing to pay for."

Socialism? Free? P.J. O'Rourke once wrote, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you have to pay for it."

Either you're a socialist or your ignorant of the concept of socialism.

Hasta la vista, baby.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service