"Suck it up, Kowalski"
Why We Must Fight On
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (104) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A friend read Alex Kowalski's blog post the other day and immediately instant messaged me. He was typing at a ferocious pace and in all caps. All he was writing was "suck it up kowalski. Suck it the **** up." I laughed and shook my head. I understand completely where Kowalski is coming from. I understand the sense of betrayal and disappoint and rank amateur incompetence of these guys.
Yet, I have half a mind to start yelling loudly "SUCK IT UP", too. I am disappointed in the Republican party. They spent more than they should have, they only brought up judges to calm the base, and they let Foley go unchecked. They have ignored conservatives. I am disappointed.
There are many solid conservatives who think the GOP needs time in the wilderness. I have to disagree. I truly do believe that this election is bigger and more important than most. Accuse me of drinking the kool-aid if you want, but I'm not so jaded to think that they are all the same.
They are not.
Read on . . .
The Democrats would work to undermine the effectiveness of the President and military in fighting the global war on terror. There are men in this world who want to kill us, and staying home gives the keys of government to the most useful idiots these men could hope to have helping them. Say what you will about GOP domestic policies in Congress -- they've been right when it comes to the war.
The Democrats would work to undermine tax cuts, trade negotiation powers that are about to sunset, earmarks reform, and immigration reform. In short, the Democrats will block all the things that have made us proud to be with the majority and they will push to a greater degree those things that have made us disappointed in our majority.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we damn well ought to be disappointed. But we damn well better get out there and fight for this majority.
Kowalski and others, I'll tell you want we do. It's simple. We put our jerks back in office instead of their jerks and then we raise hell until they put conservatives in leadership positions. We want a steering committee position for the RSC and we want someone named Shadegg or Pence at the very top of House Leadership.
At the end of the day, however much you may be angry, upset, unfocused, or disgusted, ask yourself if you really want to hear the words "Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Murtha."
Suck it up, boys and girls.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Cognitive Dissonance at the Washington Post — Comments (24) »
"Suck it up, Kowalski" 104 Comments (0 topical, 104 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Okay. I came back on RS because this is just so important. Lawguy said "oh, and it might get us all killed by terrorists, too." I'll return to this.
The argument that I have made to my friends and my family (with young kids) about this Foley scandal: "I guess if I wasn't solid in my fundamental beliefs, this media frenzy could have me all upset,too. But I'm not swayed!!!!
The reason is, I tell them, you need to be a critical consumer of NEWS. It's like a beer, cereal or a weight loss advertisement. The TV puts it before you for one reason. SELL. SELL. SELL: The Republicans are evil hypocrites!!!! Cringe. Doubt yourself. Believe your standards are wrong because this scandal is on the NEWS over and over. OMYGAWD!!!
But the fact is (like many of you have been taught about life challenges) in this case you are voting (it's ALL about the Nov elections) for more than the latest salacious headline that has you upset. You are voting for a whole philsophy and AGENDA of a political parties. Think!
MSM is trying to convince you to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Read all REPUBLICANS. But think. Are you for the ACLU? If you are a true conservative, they bring the cases against everything you fight for (detainee rights and against military)and cost your school districts big money just to put up a Christmas tree or even a Santa Claus. Do you think a fully formed baby should be killed when it's partially born? Do you want your daughter to have a major medial procedure without your knowledge? No parental rights. (Oh, things go wrong: Guess what. Then you get the the bill.) Do you want a secularist society which doesn't allow you to recognize PUBLICLY the God of your choice? That's all about appointing JUDGES. The Dems selection of judges certainly will embrace the ACLU thinking. Think Clinton ACLU judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And on other practical conservative points: Do you want the Dems to raise your taxes? They call it investments or rolling back the Bush tax cuts.
And on the biggest point of all: Terrorism. From what I can see the Dems abstolutely do not understand the threat or the definition of the war that we are fighting. It's a political game to them. Can you trust a party that cannot grasp the threat that we are facing? Having a friend that died in the WTC, it's already real.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/kowalski/2006/oct/03/final_post_on_redstat...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
The orangeshirted members of the Kowalski Fan Club are going to LOVE this one.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Why orange shirted? Is this a term I'm not familiar with?
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
I use it to refer to that portion of the Daily Kos community that engages in thuggish tactics.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You think that if the dhimmicrats win they will not seek to rig the game to squash freedom on the internet, criminalize even more behavior, raise our taxes, and seek to defund this war, you are kidding yourself.
The dhimmis are the ones who played the tune we ahve all been dancing too for far too long.
I even recommended Kowalksi's blog entry because it was well done and reflected how many conservatives feel. Nonetheless, this is no time to give up. Call me naive, but the Foley scandal ultimately will be a minor albeit quite nasty factor come Election Day. If we do hang on to our majorities, house cleaning and a recommitment to the principles that made us the majority need to begin the day after votes are cast.
NEVER!!!!!!!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
While I agree with much of what Erick is saying here, I have to ask:
How do we keep our elected ones accountable? If we don't vote them out when they screw up, what incentive to they (or future ones) have to behave better?
then vote GOP in the general. My overall strategy, anyways.
Then, put the pressure on the elected officials through e-mails, letters, phone calls, etc. -- see Miers, Harriet for a great example of how that is done. Our voice doesn't stop at the polling booth every two years.
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
If you want to hold people accountable, but don't want to hold control of the seat to a real loser from another party, you contest primaries.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
but you don't toss the good ones out with the bad. Foley is gone now.
As far as other non-Foley behavior being held accountable see Pennsylvania, or MI-7
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
It's pretty funny how the Michigan media has spun that district's race... there was an editorial in the Kalamazoo Gazette recently accusing us as Republicans for promoting unheard of levels of ideological purity, saying that Schwarz is, wait for it... a member of the right wing of the Republican Party. To this I say bluntly, "What??". It's typically considered bad politics in Michigan to seen as sharing political goals or being in agreement with our nitwit Canadian-born, Berkeley-educated, ACLU-member governor, but Schwarz had no such qualms. While it is also true that Schwarz wasn't the most egregious RINO in the GOP House Caucus, one could've done far worse of finding somebody to shoo out than Schwarz. It also shows that the state GOP isn't likely to get much of a fair shake outside of the Grand Rapids Press, methinks.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
I know I have been very critical of the "I want to lose" mindset in the base right now, but you are spot on. The Samson Principle of taking out even the innocent/good Congressmen to punish for something somebody else did is foolish. Why punish Shaddegg for Foley?
Sitting out is a vote for KOS.
and I think even in the case of our trash, if he still wins, but just barely, maybe it will be like a bucket of cold water, and he will pay more attention to conservative opinion instead of trying to make nice with the other side.
I call myself a realist and decry many of the actions of those - scare quote "conservatives" scare quote - we elected. Seldom do I stop and examine my intentionally buried memory of the years we conservatives spent in the wilderness. When I read your command to suck it up, I think of what would have happened, had a Democrat been elected instead of GWB or had the democrats regained the Congress.
The thought is unnerving when you imagine Gore's - reaction to 9/11 or Kerry's actions to repudiate and abandon the WOT as it is now playing out. Where would the economy be without the Bush tax cuts? Recession / stagnation. The R's spent like a democrat, but how much more with Democrat control of the purse?
Thank you for a quick thump of reality. Disappointment in the current state of affairs? Absolutely. Unfettered democratic control of the processess of government. Never again I trust.
As much as I like and respect you, I couldn't read past your d*mn this and d*mn that. It totally took the focus off of what you were saying because I expected more. You're better than that and so is this site.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
If this is the most profane this site gets, I don't have a problem with it.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
That way, people can fill in the appropriate words themselves and maybe come up with a worse word and or phrase than the one that I thought better of using!
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I've been noodling around ideas about a blog post entirely about circumlocutions, or as I like to think of them, 'words you can use to replace words that would get you banned here'. E.g., 'gosh darn' is one type, invented words like zark and smeg are another.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Euphemism covers words like darn and fudge, but not really other examples such as zark, smeg, belgium, or obscenities in Klingon, French, etc.-- a college prof of mine once used circumlocution to describe the larger class of words, so I went with that.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
The point is that there is supposed to be a zero tolerance for profanity on this site. It's one of the things that separates this site from the others. I don't feel the need to go into all of the reasons why it doesn't belong here, as I've already done so in the handy dandy contact button as of 11pm last night, but if it's not tolerated for some, it shouldn't be tolerated for others.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
that if you fight back you will gain the support and trust of the voter, who has had it with these October surprises. Just ask Allen in Virginia, who has been fighting back and now has a double digit lead over Webb.
RS has predicting this kind of race for the past year. We know it will get even more vile in the next few weeks and this is where we suck it up and hammer down. We can and should win. We must not allow the MSM and Deaniacs to force us on the defensive. We need to hammer them on the issues that matter and not let up.
"Peace had a chance"
...to express similar thoughts.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/jonb/2006/oct/04/will_you_reward_or_punish...
Maybe if we all pitch in for Diana Irey (R-PA-12) he might end up as FORMER Congressman Murtha. From what I've heard, that race is closing fast, in a district full of veterans. Go Diana!
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
But the GOP would be in a much better place if they stuck closer to libertarianism and steered clear "big government conservatism" and populism and social conservativism.
Just my opinion. But if prudence, federalism, truly free markets, "laissez-faire social policy", limited government, diplomacy and extreme caution in foreign entanglments were strictly adhered to with no pandering to anything else, the GOP wouldn't be in this position. They'd have enemies, sure but they'd be severly outnumbered by supporters.
Ron Paul is epitomy of this model.
Don't tread on me.
Except for the so called "big government conservatism" which has to go. Populism and social conservatism should be the strength of the party. We've gone too extreme when it comes to economics, when we can say the southern invasion of illegals is ok because it helps business.
Isolationism made some sense in the 19th century, but we live in the 21st. If libertarians weren't constantly pushing an isolationist world view, they'd have a lot more supporters. What's anti-libertarian about encouraging the growth of liberty in other countries?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I think the difference in opinion might arise out of the use of the word "encouraging" versus "engineering". Personally I'd rather see us promote liberty abroad through encouragement and being ready to embrace whatever better forms of government that foreign citizens take it upon themselves to create. I think the fastest way to spread liberty is through spreading the American form of capitalism - that means working with nations that have governments we don't particularly approve of but with whom we can still establish trade. What our armies cannot do, American corporations and capitalistic success can.
It doesn't mean embracing enemies, and to the extent our government may have perceived Iraq as our most critical enemy at the time then they had to use force. However, I continue to believe (hold out hope) that what we're really after are permanent military bases and an oil rich pro-American trade partner, regardless of whatever government gets established. That's a goal in line with what our government should be focused on, and one that, if it bears fruit, would justify (to me) the costs of the engagement.
Ultimately, Americans better be a heck of a lot more important than Iraqis to our own government. If we're there now just to "do good" and spread liberty, then I'll be very disappointed (I know the security/terrorism angle but I remain skeptical that we'll substantially weaken global anti-American terrorism by slugging it out in the streets of Baghdad). It's simply irrational and negligent for our elected federal officials to put anything else ahead of maintaining American superiority - certainly nothing else is worth losing American lives over, IMO. That may be isolationist, and I don't know whether it places me in a libertarian camp, but it's a very realistic and rational position to take - not that I can't be convinced otherwise with new perspectives.
We've been spreading capitalism to China for a while, and it hasn't really increased freedoms all that much there. Instead, we have Microsoft, Cisco and Google consenting to help China oppress their citizens.
Thank goodness wikipedia at least stood up for the right thing.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
...is the real long term focus our government should have (and I think does have) with regards to our endeavor in Iraq.
That said, I don't know any time when we've ever had better trade relations with China - or better relations overall. If we've been told that it may take decades for Iraq to achieve a genuine democracy then why not be patient with China?
American companies and product are being sold there. Wal-Mart enjoys a number of successful super stores there. Our brand names are competing well there - not always winning, but competing well. Yes, Internet-related companies do business and cooperate with the law of their land - or as you say helping to oppress Chinese citizens. A difference of perspective and I know many others share your viewpoint here, but then again Americans are more important than Chinese. Chinese citizens may well continue striving for a democracy and I wish them well and hope for their success. Until they take it on themselves to achieve one, I'm happy to see them adopt more capitialistic practices and buy into American culture and buy from American companies.
If in the long term that kind of cooperation doesn't stave of an eventual confrontation with them as a second world super power of the same magnitude as we had with the USSR, then the permanent military bases we establish in Iraq will pay off.
The issue is not that the base needs to fight on.
The issue is that the people on the fence, the libertarians, the people disgusted with the Democrats and the people disgusted with the Republicans need to be brought back.
People like Kowalski leaving is not the problem.
People like Kowalski leaving is a symptom of the problem.
Chants to suck it up, pointing out to people that the page was technically of age, pointing out to people that (scandal du jour) is bad but you have to realize that democrats totally do that too... and so on and so forth... well, that's great for the base, but it's not so great for the people on the fence, the libertarians, and the people disgusted with both parties.
I used to think that the Republicans would lose a handful (but not two handsful) of House seats and 1, tops, seat in the Senate.
Now I tend to think that it's likely that the balance will shift.
If the balance shifts, it won't be because the base was insufficiently riled to fight back against the Democrats, it will be because the people who could swing either way (and have been swinging Republican since 1994 or so) have been turned off by the Republican party acting the way that they seem to remember Democrats acting, way back when.
I posit that the best way to win them back is not to point out that the page was 18 at the time of that IM conversation so what's the big deal?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The straying from libertarianism is, in my mind, the biggest problem. The Republican Liberty Caucus needs to be the standard bearer for the GOP...not neocons, so-cons or any other faction.
If I recall, the Contract for America sounded quite libertarian in its appeal. My have things changed.
Don't tread on me.
I mean, I tend to think that the country would be better off if we repealed the 16th and 17th Amendments. If there was a candidate who ran on that platform... ah, well. No reason to visit that daydream again. It's even more bittersweet than the powerball daydreams.
Anyway, I agree with you, I'm just saying watch out for projection.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
This isn't the issue that pushed me out of the party. I'm a small-government conservative and for me, the modern GOP has combined the worst of both parties. When people talk about the dems being worse, I agree that what they _talk_ about is worse. But they have proven themselves too politically incompetent to actually do anything about their 'ideas' (and have been for decades).
And I no longer judge politicians on their what they talk about. So what has the GOP done in power and is it worse than what the dems would do with one or both houses of congress?
The GOP created the largest new entitlement program since LBJ. Social spending is up across the board. Tax cuts? How long do we expect them to last while spending is rocketing upwards? No, on economic matters, I strongly prefer what the GOP talks about, but when I look at the numbers of what they've done I think they're far worse than what the dems have done for decades or would be able to do in power.
On social issues, the GOP seems addicted to using federal power at the expense of state and local choice. Once again, the dems might talk about it, but with GOP opposing their plans, even from a minority position, they'd never get them through.
In terms of the big issue for most of us, the wars currently being fought, I think Bush will do a better job with a congress questioning his actions than with the current setup. A robust and real debate on these issues is needed to both work past current difficulties and raise the importance of doing everything we can to secure a stable Iraq. The current echo chamber is not forcing anyone to honestly face what we need to do to succeed (and we need to do more than 'stay the course').
Right now, divided government seems about the best way to bring out the best in the GOP. It also seems to me what's best for the country of the horrible options I have available.
There is no party for small-government conservatives right now. There are some politicians for us, and I will continue to support them. But until the GOP does more than speak the lines I want to hear and then go out and _do the exact opposite_, I will no longer support them as a party.
Now THAT'S how you moby. Take notes, boys.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
It's possible for someone to hold a position like that in good faith.
It's far too easy to say that you don't have to address any points made because the person making them is obviously faking.
Anyways, a better term would be "concern troll". (I've always thought of a Moby as someone pretending to be an EvilCon.)
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
That is the original usage. A person had to be pretending to be a republican, not merely a conservative, and they had to say outrageously evil things.
It has expanded, however, to include anyone pretending to be a republican or a conservative for whatever nefarious purpose. At redstate, the most common usage is a kos-type pretending to be a conservative with a "crisis of conscience" or a "change of heart", or who is having one of those "but come on guys, we have to face" blank type of moments.
say, vbPhil? (Remember vbPhil? I kinda miss him. He and I agreed on practically squat, but he always struck me as the kinda guy who would drive me nuts on a message board but, in real life, he'd make one heckuva neighbor or co-worker so long as you could keep away from the topics of abortion and/or homosexuality).
There is a *BIG* spectrum out there... and there are a lot of kinds of republicans and I can think of three or four that would be legitimately turned off by the last six years and that's not even counting the libertarian nuts like me.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
He did a good job picking up what is disgruntling some Republicans, but then he drifted into this part:
In terms of the big issue for most of us, the wars currently being fought, I think Bush will do a better job with a congress questioning his actions than with the current setup. A robust and real debate on these issues is needed to both work past current difficulties and raise the importance of doing everything we can to secure a stable Iraq. The current echo chamber is not forcing anyone to honestly face what we need to do to succeed (and we need to do more than 'stay the course').
That's all standard lefty Democrat stuff. If not for that paragraph I might have taken him for a genuine ex-Republican.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Time to play buzzword bingo:
"real debate"? Check!
"echo chamber"? Check!
backhanded use of "honest"? Check!
derisive mention of "stay the course"? Check!
Bingo!
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Plus the implied threat of endless hours of Congressional hearings 'questioning' the President on everything they don't like...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Few dems out there think that the problem is that we need to focus more effort on Iraq, not pull out (and yes, if the dems were in power, I would make derisive references to _their_ buzzwords). Our national security and national honor depend on living up to the commitment we made when we went into Iraq. If we fail there, we have truly damaged our security.
Questioning the methods is not the same as the democratic position of questioning the mission.
I've read through this thread and a couple of others to try to get a sense of why I was read this way.
To avoid further confusion, I would probably have to be, on many things, lumped in with what y'all refer to as 'Bush haters' (although I don't think of myself as hating Bush, just thinking he's betrayed most of what I think of conservative principles). I come at that view from a small-government conservative perspective.
I continue to strongly disagree that this makes me a democrat or in any way a supporter of democratic positions. Perhaps that will help you to correctly slot me so that your dismissals will more accurately connect.
I think you're quick to spot Dem and Lefty "stuff" because you are very indocrinated in GOP and Righty "stuff". It's somewhat like projection. I think you use GOP talking points all the time but I never make an issue of it since this is a GOP site. But that doesn't mean you should be instantly so suspicious of others who don't think like you and sound like you. You strike me as a loyal and defensive party guy thru and thru. Fine. That's your peragotive.
But there are people, like me and others, who don't talk and think the way you do, who lack your undoggedly loyal B/W view of everything. The absence of that similarity does not make us Dems or liberals. And what I often sense from you is a "if it's not A, then it HAS TO be B" kind of logic. I don't buy it. I and others may not be loyal "true believers" like you but that doesn't make us "the enemy", opposition or wrong.
Perhaps people who speak in a very generic tone are not the majority at RS. So what? I'm sure we are in the whole country at large.
Don't tread on me.
There are plenty of people I disagree with, but don't call out. I just call out the ones who express the same ideas and use the same langauge that the Markos Moulitsas, Nancy Pelosis, and Ted Kennedys of the world express.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
As an absolute republican through the mid-nineties (then shifting more unaffiliated/libertarian), I still retain hope for the GOP (which is why I still read here).
I think this current scandal is the worst reason available to have issues with the republicans. If that makes me a troll, go for it.
The more appropriate issue is whether this is not the best thread for this. Given discussion about sticking with the party, I felt that it was an acceptable place to enter the discussion.
At some point, I would be curious to see a discussion on where social conservatives and small government conservatives go from here. It is often discussed from the more libertarian side, so I admit to being curious what opinions those who have retained a more explicitly partisan perspective would have. If that is trolling within the context of this board, I apologize.
is "Sticking with the Party" for the party's sake. But we do have to do what needs to be done to not have John Murtha and Co. has the House leadership. If you had been around for more than three hours you might have well seen how we choose to help purge the party of Rinos
"Peace had a chance"
No more "compassionate" conservatives. As Reagan said, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."
Erick,
I totally agree with your assessment, and I am definitely going to vote in this midterm election for conervative Republicans. But, I am not going to stomp on another person for having a different perspective. Check out this link
http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/for_55_house_incumbents_safe_i.html
If you live in one of those 45 congressional districts where the dem is running unopposed then you just might have a different attitude about the whole matter of midterm elections than you would if you live elsewhere. I do not know where Kowalski lives. From his last post it is obvious that he is dispirited. I still have hope for him and a lot of other folks that things can get better.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
"GOP no longer my pants" about ten times. I couldn't figure out what that meant. Looks like it's time to head back to the eye doctor.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
and every time I think I have talked myself out of commenting I come back. Apparently my alter ego has won the argument.
With all that has been said here, in kowalski's original post, streiff's "I'm not leaving" post, and all the rest of us that have come at this "state of pre-election-day affairs" from our respective positions, the one thing that runs through all of the opinions here is that the alternative surely will be worse for us in the short AND long term.
True, we don't agree on how much worse, or how long "long term" really may be, nonetheless all among us fear the worst of a Dem controlled 110th...for any number of personal and/or political reasons. The rub is in trying to rally the troops around an "unrally-able" situation.
We all know within ourselves whether we're going to vote and for whom our votes will be cast (if we do our civic duty). We all know, when the car door is closed, or the light is turned off as we settle down into the pillow, what is at stake, even if we don't say so out loud. The difficulty is in feeling good about it. I don't, many here don't, but more important than trying to get anyone re-energized, or trying to cheerlead, what we need to do is focus on doing what our founders expected of us...vote, and vote our conscience. Anyone here who truly ARE conservative or conservative leaning that believes in the idea that voting is our RESPONSIBILITY, will do so...whether they feel "good" about it or not.
I have made it abundantly clear what I will be doing, AND, that I will be taking a long hot shower afterward. What brings me back here every day, and keeps me moving forward, is the belief (I hope it is not a naieve belief) that I have 2 years to do more and better at driving the change we ALL know needs to be made...and trying to keep the faith that it is still possible.
The wilderness of the pols is the wilderness of their constituents, and with winter coming on, I don't want to be in the wilderness...it's cold up in them thar hills.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
Just think of how despondent all the Bush-haters and Kossacks will be if we can survive this mid-term election with our majorities intact, especially if they aren't even dented much, or hoping beyond hope, actually expanded a bit.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
is sit down and make two lists:
1) Bozo Republicans that are from safe states (Senate) or districts ( House )
2) Defeatable Dems
Then divide that list up and start recruiting for 2008.
Two quesitons for all the "Republicans need to lose to get back to their roots, etc." types:
1) Name 15 Republican congressmen who deserve to lose and why.
2) Why will the Democrat be a better represenative for those Districts.
So, come on, all you "true conservatives" name those errant elected who have so betrayed the platform that they must be cast aside for the "reformed conservative" Democrat.
Fact is, the whole "lose to win" meme is poorly thought-out stupidity--great in the abstract with cursory examination. One can talk all day about how losing will purify the party but ask who should lose and why and all of a sudden reality is forced to return.
The meme is nothing more than a blind donkey stumbling toward a waterfall attempting to catch the stampeding "herd."
I suspect the first part of your question would not be that difficult.
Just about every member of the Committee that writes the Spending bills in the house would qualify.
Now, would a Dem be better than them? Probably not, but if we (see my comment above) could target and defeat a few of them in primaries with small spenders, I think we'd get our caucus back on track.
On the Senate side, Dewine, McCain, Graham, come to mind.
Now, filtering for Red / Blue / Purple states, it probably only leaves us Graham who should go (well Burns and Dewine should go cuz they're crooks).
Clearly, now that the primaries are over, any decent conservative has to vote for the Republican guy. The only alternative would be the democrat.
And the strategy to target corrupt Republicans before the next primary is sound.
But tactically - does this ever work? Look at Chafee. Decent conservatives tried like hell to oust him in the primary.
Have you looked at how often an incumbent is replaced, in his own party, in a primary? Pretty much, only if there is extreme corruption.
So the strategy - replace the corrupt and unfaithful conservatives in the primary - founders on the rocks of - it ain't gonna happen.
If you look at my post above, we only target "moderate" Republicans in Red States. I don't want to reduce my count. I want to pick off my conservatives where I can and add moderates in for Dems if that is my option.
I'll never get 55 conservative Republicans.
However, if I get get conservatives in all the Red States and keep my moderates, I'd probably have 50 conservatives and 15 moderates (if we could flip Arkansas, WV, SD, ND, and the other half of LA).
Look, I certainly can't come up with 15 superior democrats. But, I think that if you look at most of those seats, the dems won't be able to hold them through the next cycle. I'm far more inclined for them to get the house than the senate because of that fact. The point is more, how many of those republicans can you find better _republicans_ to replace. I happen to think that primary challenges are not going to work against most of these incumbants. Yes, in the short run that means some seats fall to the dems.
But, so we don't get into a repeat of above, I'm basically libertarian and want to see small-government conservatives take over the GOP, so take anything I say as suspect.
Even threatening to not join the dhimmi caucus if he wins?
No.
Any dhimmis we help are just going to get swallowed up in the Kos/dean/Soros moonbat machine to hate America first and look to exit this war and ignore the massive negative repurcussions.
I wonder if the French partisans thought it was great for them to be "wondering in the wilderness" while the Gestapo took pot shots at them? And, is the current French Government better or worse than the one the Germans destroyed in less than six weeks?
Who was it who said (Churchill?) "the only thing more expensive than winning a war is loosing one"?
Let us hope we Republicans don't find out. This is war not just on Islamofascists but on the "pregressive" left as well. We may not like all the officers, we may have a few Salerno and Tarawa's (Betio) the Torpedos may not always explode. But it will be a darn site more expensive for our country and humanity in general (the US the last, best hope for humanity) to loose this war (on the left).
like to see lose, because he is a big government conservative and a social liberal-while Bass doesn't get the name RINO hung on his neck often, that is what I feel he is.
He is good on some issues, but I dont like him as a GOP representative, and given that we have two fairly conservative GOP senators, it is hard to argue that RINO's are the only thing NH is capable of.
But I want to see Bass defeated at the primary level (I voted against him a couple of years ago in the primary, but this year he was unopposed).
Bass I think deserves to lose, but he is going to get my vote, because I don't like the alternative, which isn't a RINO but an out and out liberal.
Seems to me the answer isn't booting out GOP congressmen at the general level, but actually supporting strong candidates to oppose them in the primaries.
I am a small government conservative and I just know that Democrats can do a better job in that respect. After all how many times did they say that they are for balancing the budget and more efficient government? Many many times.
I am also big on fighting the islamonazis and I know that you all know that Democrats can do a better job on that score as well. After all how many times did they say that if they were in power they would've destroyed all Al Qaeda and captured Bin Laden by now? Plenty of times. Certainly a lot more than the GOP. These kinds of things count.
I also believe in preserving our liberties and we are all aware that the Democratic Party would be best in preserving our liberties. It doesn't matter if we are actually preserving the liberties of Pakistani citizens fresh out of Al Qaeda bootcamps because after all we could all be in their shoes. They are human beings after all and any law against another human being is a law against us all.
It's a sign of an enlightened human being to be able to change one's ideology to the better narrative. Democrats have outtalked us and I don't want to be a conservative anymore either.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
you almost HAD me...
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
I was feeling wild, crazy and open-minded.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
He's living in Sarcasmville.
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
Don't you guys remember? He moved to the People's Republic of Taxachusettes. My sister lives there, and it is like living in a house of mirrors. Eventually, your perspective gets all messed up.
I know D.C. is strongly D, but at least there are some mouthy Rs around. In Taxachusettes, Mitt Romney is their best effort at a Republican. My sister still says she is a Republican, but we are from Missouri, and around here she would be considered a crazy moonbat leftist. She is only R by their standards.
Poor Kowalski has just been caught up in that nasty echo chamber for so long he has lost his bearings (and maybe his mind - you would too if Barney Frank, John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy were your elected reps!!!).
One of these days he'll transfer out and hopefully get it back together. Good luck, Kowalski.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I was trying to express the same sentiment earlier in a reply where I inserted this link
http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/for_55_house_incumbents_safe_i.html
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Yes, can agree with Kowlaski, but there comes a time when you have to decide on your vote... So, I guess I'll trudge along and still vote Republican but will attempt to weed out those that do not belong...
Yes, the Democrats in charge scare me to death....
but I had to pop back up because this just struck home too much. I haven't left Redstate -- I just went on posting hiatus when this started to become a bit TOO absorbing for my life. But I did want to share this with you all.
I share much of Kowalski's disgust as well, and the overspending, and the lack of leadership, and so forth.
But you know... if you read sites like Brussels journal on a semi-regular basis, you come to realize that nothing much matters except for victory in the war against Islamists.
Right now, today, there's only one party that is on the right side of that conflict. That war cannot be lost, or all else is lost. Democrats and liberals don't even think there is a war against Islamists; they just think it's a cultural difference that we should accommodate, and that if the U.S. could only get the racist, xenophobic, homophobic white male Christian fundamentalist Republicans out of office, all will be well. That's national and cultural suicide.
Spending, taxation, energy policy, conservation, global warming, Venezuela, illegal immigration, etc. etc. -- all incredibly important issues, but they all pale in significance compared to the Single Overriding Challenge of our generation.
So I will be there for Republicans, even if I have to grit my teeth in distaste, because the alternative is no alternative at all.
-TS
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia
Of course I totally agree with you on the war. On the GOP problem, what we must do, is try to point out the disconnect between what happens on the one day every two years when actual votes are cast and the yakyak polls and media fantasy world between lections and get candidates with spines to run in primaries against the spineless and illogical fearful. We win on conservative policies we run on against libs and then turn scared 72 hrs later when the MSM runs a poll.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Democrats in charge equal lost war and terrorists with rights.
Formally known as deagle (Would not let me re-subscrib - Understandable - Ha)...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Looks like some interresting news is coming out on Drudge. Might be all a prank on Foley... Sure hope that this is true. Hmmm...
I have posted several times that it isn't Bush that has ticked me off (other than his loss of the veto pen), but the cruddy action in congress that thinks flag burning amendments are somehow more important than immigration, social security, issues of security etc
Congress in general has done a crappy job the last several years.
The senate has done one thing that made me proud, they managed to confirm Roberts and Alito.
But, and this is my big but, the idea that electing a democrat would somehow make the GOP better is a farce. The reality is that it is the socially liberal, big spening GOPers that are the problem. I think the problem is the libertarian wing is too ticked at the social conseravative wing to realize that they have more in common than the RINO wing.
I trend somewhere between social conservative and libertarian on those issues (yes it is weird, but I think both sides are right on some issues), and I definitely fall in the fiscal conservative area.
I mean lets look at the two most hated bills in congress-on both sides of the aisle-the NCLB and the medicare drug bill-why do libertarians hate it? Why do social conservatives hate them? I am willing to bet our lists of why are going to be in line, while the reasons the RINO's like it will differ.
Maybe the two wings should stop fighting and realize united we can maybe ditch the dead weight in this party.
I too, am weird. First, NCLB and PxDrugBill? While, philosophically I think it would be best if the federal government got out of education completely and state's went to vouchers for all, I do think that Bush's approach to demand accountability for the $$ is an improvement and that what I desire is not realistic now. I also think that the Px bill is a step toward needed reform in the long run but that ultimately, the only way to fix the loomimg fiscal danger is thru complete medical sot market reform and soc sec reform along W's lines.
But to the mainpoint. I think libertarians misunderstand the main thrusts of social conservatives. Social conservatives only got politically involved as a DEFENSIVE reaction to court rulings affirming denials of free speech, ie religious speech. The issue is not even the free exercise of religion. That relates to attending a chuerch. the issue is free speech. It is not "imposing" ones views that people HEAR religious speech anymore than hearing secular speech. The main thrust of social conservatives IS LIBERTARIAN!!
more later
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
You are correct...but what choice do we have? That is the question that has to be answered... No choice as I see it.
Formally known as deagle (Would not let me re-subscrib - Understandable - Ha)...
It is hard to believe the sheer blind panic that I see amongst usually reasonable people brought on by a run-of-the-mill, October surprise, MSM hyped and manufactured sex scandal. If this incident is going to cause you fall on your sword then you were likely too idealistic and not clear thinking enough in the first place. Politicians are all prostitutes. We try to pressure them into doing the right thing using interest groups, blogs, polls, donations etc. I would never consider leaving a child or a loved in a room alone with a politician. A majority of them are dime store hustlers and country club con artists. If they had grown up the ghetto they would have become pimps or race hustlers (think Al Sharpton).
If discovering this horrible fact is enough to make you want to turn the country over to the anti-American, pro-jihadist, anti-Semitic, Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan, lunatic left then you really need to grow up and start thinking in practical terms. There is no time for teenage political idealism when we are in a war for survival. When you get in the booth think about who you want making decision on national security. When we win the war we can get back to worrying about high minded conservative ideals and electing heroic, Reagan-like politicians.
Your right of course, but I for one tend to believe in the fairy tale (not totally wrong) that the Republicans were morally above the rest. Now that still seems to hold true, but sometimes a bit of a let-down happens. And yes, there are more major concerns than an individual’s morality - the country's survival is at stake.
Formally known as deagle (Would not let me re-subscrib - Understandable - Ha)...
Formally known as deagle (Would not let me re-subscrib - Understandable - Ha)...
... and others...
And I keep shaking my head. I mean, I'm a pretty firebrand liberal democrat. But even after Bush and this Congress, I'm no where nearly as scared of Republicans as you guys are, or profess to be, of Democrats. In fact, the ideal world for me would have Congress and the White House controlled by opposing parties. If we have Congress - I *want* you to have the Bully Pulpit. And, the other way around. I would like a session or two of Democratic control in the Senate with a Democratic President, just so that we could reverse some of the worst of the last 4 years... but after that I'm happy as a lark to see power divided.
Let me be clear - I don't want to see government shrunken to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub. Government is the only institution in existence that can allow a society to to work collectively on the large scale. Until we create some other institution that can serve that purpose and plausibly represent all of the people, society cannot needs a government with the power & flexibility to serve its purpose, be they economic, security, moral, or otherwise. On the other hand, I sympathize with the small-government types, who don't want an infitely-expansive government. And I sympathize with conservatives, and all concerned citizens who decry waste and cronyism in government spending and increased national debt. I believe in pay-as-you-go. The government should grow with the society, but it should not outgrow the society, or become an overall burden on it. The small-government instinct is an admirable one, but it is only part of the equation.
The instinct to project power in the world is both dangerous and necessary. I understand conservative's interest in a muscular foreign policy. Right now, I feel like it has taken on a life of its own and become dangerously arrogant and unrestrained, but I understand what lies at the root of it.
Also, with the social conservatives - my mother is one, and though I believe her ideas to be wrong-headed and largely derived from successful propaganda on the part of the church and the conservative movement, I know where her heart is, and I admire her for holding fast to what she believes. Traditions do have value - they should not carry so much power that they become oppressive to personal freedoms - but they do have value.
I guess I overlook the crazies on Kos because they are "my" crazies & I have more sympathy for their cause than for the causes espoused here, most of which I view as wrong-headed. But, my goodness, do you guys really believe a Democratic Congress would be so unsuitable that you have to support and vote for a Republican you hate if you live in such a district? Not so that Republicans will have a voice, but because you believe there is some kind of necessity that Republicans control every branch of government?
If this was 2000, I would agree with the statement that Congress controlled by opposite parties would be good...and I would not have cared that much if a Democrat was President. My have times changed...
I guess if you live in a political vacuum, you might think like you do...but come on, where have you been? The Democratic party has become unhinged in the last few years, to a point of being un-American and un-Patriotic. Just look at the fringe elements that now make up the Democrats... Socialists, Communists, Radialists, and then there are Zell Miller and hmmm..who is that other outcast that voted for the war....
Well, you know what I mean. Look around man and smell the stinky roses...
Formally known as deagle (Would not let me re-subscrib - Understandable - Ha)...
Do you need help?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
If I could get back my old login, that would be great... Sorry for the obvious hint below...heh... Thought maybe I was unwelcome or such... Thanks,
Formally known as deagle (Would not let me re-subscrib - Understandable - Ha)...
I disagree almost utterly with a great deal of what you said, but I appreciate the good tone, good manners, and good language. There's been an uptick in the opposite lately, so I just wanted to say thanks for being an exception.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Partly, I think it's that the Democratic party seems controlled by its far left wing. I'm not talking about Kos. I'm talking about potential Speaker Pelosi. This is not the choice of a moderate party, at least as this Midwestern conservative sees it.
It doesn't help that the primary public position the Democratic party has taken on Iraq is withdrawl. There are many legitimate criticisms of the war and its prosecution. But at this point, effectively surrendering is such a horrible option that it can't be seriously considered.
As for us social conservatives, we're getting close to having a majority of judges on the Supreme Court that respect the Constitution as it was written. That's so valuable to us that we'd be nuts not to push for continued Republican control of the Senate and Presidency. That's true even if we may not be fond of some of these politicans.
I agree that in the ideal, we'd be better off with two-party rule. From our point of view, though, the Democratic party is too ill to serve in that capacity right now. If you can help nurse her back to health, more power to you.
Nicely said...without the "Plain Language" that is sometimes required to make your point. (Doubt that it will effect the actual leftest that seem to occupy most of the party - but may appeal to the older Democrats).
Formally known as deagle (And may be again...)
But, my goodness, do you guys really believe a Democratic Congress would be so unsuitable that you have to support and vote for a Republican you hate if you live in such a district? Not so that Republicans will have a voice, but because you believe there is some kind of necessity that Republicans control every branch of government?
Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
If this were Sept 10, 2001, I would have largely agreed with everything you said. On that day, the pressing issues were things like the economy ("Oh noes, the dotbomb is killing the Dow!") and whether the Yankees would win the World Series. Of course, I was blind to the reality of what had been going on in the world, as was the vast, vast majority of Americans.
Today, after five years of a war that must be won, no matter how poorly executed at times, no matter how misnomered (I have to agree with trevino that "War on Terror" was and remains a silly politically-correct term), no matter how expensive, no matter how difficult, I have come to realize that the Democratic party as currently constituted simply cannot be allowed to have any power at all.
The problem is one of fundamental premise. One either believes that we are in a decisive struggle for the future of humanity, as we were in the war against Fascism (WW II) and war against Communism (WW III), or that we are not. The mounting evidence coming out of Europe, out of Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, out of Indonesia, and so forth convinces me that we are.
If you believe that we are not in such a civilizational conflict, then yes, I can see how you would want division of power, how you'd want a 'middle of the road' solution when it comes to issues like drilling for oil in Alaska or stem cell research or abortion or whatever. But if you believe that we are in fact in a struggle for civilization, then there is no alternative.
On this issue of the war against Islamists, there can be no "middle road". I'm sorry, but there cannot be. Either they are victorious in imposing their will on the world, or we are. Either my wife and daughter have to be in a burqa when visiting Milan and Paris twenty years from now, or they do not. We can't have a 'negotiated solution' to this -- partial shari'a for Muslims in the U.S. and Europe, but civil law for everyone else. None of that is acceptable to me, anymore than 'partial Facism' would be to any civilized human being.
And on this issue, the Democrats are woefully, sadly, tragically wrong. The Lieberman defeat in the primaries is just one example of how incredibly misguided and wrong the Democrats are today. Bob Menendez's ads in New Jersey talking about "Bush's War" actually frightens me with either (a) how irresponsible he is, or (b) how clueless he is.
Should the Democrats reform the party from within, then I can see supporting a division of power where the branches can fight over social issues, over economic issues, and such, while being completely, 100% united on the issue of the War. Until that date, sorry. Democratic Congress would in fact be disastrous, be so unsuitable, than I would rather bite my lip and vote for a Republican whom I may not find appealing.
-TS
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
You've pretty much captured my sentiments exactly. Looking to cut off our nose to spite our face will do nothing except get us Pelosi, Rangel, Murtha, Waxman and the rest of the unmentionables in charge of Congress - oh, and it might get us all killed by terrorists, too.