Redstate

I read your post and not only chuckled but even got a belly laugh. How do you pretend to be a commentator who would like to be taken seriously when you write the literary equivalent of a badly baked scottish tripe. I am surprised that you haven't seen the fact that any serious minded politico reads your 'stuff' and finds any credibility in your numbing diatribes. You don't know what you are talking about, do not have a theoretical grasp on the political scene, write the garbage a democrat baboon would scoff at, then expect to be listened to, with any serious thought, or by anyone who has any more experience than those who received a Merit badge in Government as a Tenderfoot.

I don't know who you are but I see your name on this site quite a bit. Since I have only been a Red Stater for a short time I must assume you have something to do with the site. I hope not, for the sake of Red State.

Let me give you a bit of advice... sit down (because what I will be suggesting may cause you to fall down), look in the mirror, see the person staring back at you, realize that the reflected image has no political savy, and then rethink your positions before you begin to write another story. (You might want to look up the word 'story' also) Political opinions are good... only if you have some semblance of quantifiable evidence that what you are spewing might be believable and perhaps even carry somewhat any thoughts close to truth.

Free speech gives the right to write, but you do yourself a great diservice when you blog idiocy. Think, rethink, and then write.

There are only two viable candidates now. McCain (for shame for shame) and Mitt Romney. When did having money to spend, and spending it become a negative. (Soros?)

Thompson was so very close to telling the country that he was no long running. When he does, which will be this week, I am thinking that he will tell his political caravan to back Mitt Romney.

I give that same advice to you. Besides, you are giving the 'Ericks' of the world a bad name.

-Erick K. Knackstedt
Knockdaddy

to my wife's horror. I've come to this because like children, people learn the hard way. If you tell a child to not touch the stove, they don't learn until they touch it. The pattern developing in the primaries is that liberalism is winning and, therefore, they only way to win is to let them. There are plenty of examples in history where liberalism/socialism has failed and I am sure, just like you, that EITHER Hillary or Obama will fail miserably and thus the people will learn. My only concern is the fight that will be required to take it back. There's a reason there have only been two other Republics throughout history and we know where they ended up.

"Two legs bad, four legs good."

So you're going to vote for Fred (who is not asking for you support) and endorse Hillary (your polar opposite, right?) during the same election cycle?

...but a Clinton candidacy helps us more in House races.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...the liberals who voted for Nixon in 1968 because "it would bring on the revolution sooner".

How did Bill the Cat say it best?: phhhhhhhhtttttttttt!

if they were running against Hillary than Obama.
The very left wing liberals don't like her and some will stay at home. Likewise, distaste for Hillary would most likely drive up Republican turnout with Conservatives holding their noses and voting for the Republican nominee (Mitt or John).
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

You underestimate the dislike in "flyover country" for John McCain. I for one will never vote for him. He is a traitor to his party. He stopped conservative judges from being placed on the courts. He is not part of the conservative movement. If the republicans nominate him, they will deserve the disaster in November that they are going to get.

How foolish can a political party be?

Especially because GHWB was making such a hash of it. Big mistake. The Clinton machine will do whatever it takes to get elected, then once elected, will do whatever it takes to get reelected. I'd rather not experience that brain damage again.

1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani

at least that way you get the devil you know. is there an unreccommend option for something you haven't recommended yet.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

to scare Jewish voters and Latino voters, not to mention white voters.

Erick, are you of the opinion that Jews aren't white?

It all depends on who the nominee is. McCain or Huckabee would destroy the conservative Republican party, so I would have to seriously consider a split ticket ala Rush.

We can win vs Obama on ideas!

And don't forget that once the Clintons have the prize, the propaganda machine will be turned against the GOP, and enough of the Democratic base will come around to make the next four years very, very, very painful.

I like the premise of your idea, but do you really want a liberal in charge of the white house, congress, and (especially) appointing SCOTUS justices? A lot of damage can be done in 4 yrs. and I'm not very optimistic that we'd be able to fix it.

On the other hand, we may not have a choice. As el hombre said, liberalism seems to be getting awfully popular and there are a lot of spoiled brats in this country that just might have to learn the hard way.

www.scottbomb.com

It's not a bad strategy, actually.

I've been contemplating for months working for Hillary in NJ, since there's no way that a Republican can take this state (sorry, Giuliani fans). Might as well make sure their weakest candidate gets the primary nod.

The thing is... well, two things... maybe three.

1. I am not at all convinced that the Democratic party destroys itself from within with a Hil-Bill win. I don't believe the Dems actually stand for anything; I believe they're all about power, graft, and machine politics of the Tammany Hall variety. Hence, union support for Dems. That being the case, no matter how much race-baiting, fem-baiting, or fish-baiting goes on, I think they reunite behind the Dem mantra of Power At Any Cost.

2. I am further unconvinced that the next Republican Revolution can happen even if Hil-Bill takes the White House. Unless the current leadership can show me that they care more about conservative principles than they do about Republican earmarks, I don't know what the shape of such a revolution would look like.

3. Finally, is it really a winning strategy in the long-run to be the "less-evil" party?

Having said all that, I totally see where you're coming from, Erick. :)

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

It's risky I know, but I rooted hard for the Obama landslide in SC, forcing Hillary to really go hard at him in some of the states with large Hispanic and white Dem voting populations. Why? Because it creates a massive and nasty dogfight that is bound to turn a lot of people off if Barack does not get the nod.

Super Tuesday now needs to be pretty big for Clinton. We need her to be the nominee because she will generate hatred from the nutroots and many of black foot soldiers and voters.

If that happens, even my boy Mitt will have a good shot at winning in November.

-------
Proof that not everyone in the mainstream media is a bleeding heart.

....three words: Judges. Judges. Judges.

Jesus wept. Sometimes Republicans are too clever by half.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

watching the Clintons' destroy the country over the next four years

Sorry, but that's horrible. I am not willing to watch my country be "destroyed" simply on hopes it'll pull back the GOP into power sometime in the future.

And what about Iraq? You'd be OK with Hillary just pulling us out of there overnight and destroying that country as well, in hopes of GOP gaining control in four years? And you think Hillary would just sit back and let herself get voted out in four years and be honorable through the process?

There's too much at stake. This thinking is just dangerous, in my opinion, and a defeatist attitude. It's also inferring that the Republicans don't have a chance to regain Congress in 2008 as well.

The Republican party has a much better chance for winning back the White House against Obama than Hillary, in my opinion. And when the Republican President actually starts acting conservative again and pulling the country back together, the GOP will gain numbers in Congress again.

if and when they get back into the WH, although this time the silverware should be locked up and toasters put away.

Bet on it, the left will consolidate behind these two abominable creatures, not to the extent of last time around, but sufficiently and steadfastly.

Let the Clinton's start smearing Repubs, ordering tax audits, push the Fairness Doctrine, and put forward all kinds of expensive and authoritarian legislation, as well as grab another million acres of land in a western state on behalf of the vultures and spiders, the environment I believe they call it, and love resuscitated will show it's amorous self.

The Great Eight Lawyers scandal will still be going on, investigations into Bush's perfidy will commence, scores will be settled, blood spilled and the Reality Based Community will enjoy every minute of it.

The attacks on Obama, what attacks ?

Downside for Bill, he and his cigars will have to find a closet somewhere, no more Oval Office, that is if he's still up to it.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Erick, can't do it man! Think about what The Left wants in an HRC or BHO administration; they want it ALL!

Sadly, GWB and a Republican majority never did a thing to them; all their programs and gravy trains are as healthy today as they were in '02. They still have all their cells pretty much intact in the Executive Branch. A few WJC appointees lost their jobs but went right into safe, government funded jobs in think tanks, non-profits, unions, and academia. So, the Ds aren't hurting out there in the Wilderness, they're tanned, relaxed, refreshed and ready to finish the job of fully implementing the World as they would have it.

There isn't a hope in Hell of us recoverning either body in Congress, so we have to try to hold on to the WH or there is NO stopping them.

In Vino Veritas

I wrote, then backspaced over, then wrote, then backspaced over again, an essay on this topic.

It had to do with the wilderness, the sense of entitlement, and earmarks and that sort of thing.

It involved a discussion of the importance of cutting fat out of budgets, cutting fat out of government, then get into a discussion if maybe some meat shouldn't be cut out too. I'd mention the TSA, the Justice Department/FDA overlap, and the BATF. I'd talk about the Contract With America.

After making a joking reference to the days where one could tar/feather one's representative without sanction, I'd use the phrase "throw the bums out" more than once.

And then I'd point out how the Republicans were able to trim government more (Welfare Reform) after some time in the wilderness with a Democratic President than they were holding the House/Senate/White House (the veto of the "Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research" bill was a victory for fiscal conservatives everywhere).

But, as I said, I backspaced over it.

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

Taking the country's temperature and reading the tea leaves (non-scientifically mind you) it looks more and more likely we're going to have a Democrat in the White House come next January!

Having said that and taking what I find to be the most credible argument against your post -- Judges -- I have to say again nominating judges is one thing getting them though the process with a hostel Congress is another. As far as democrats go Obama will nominate the most liberal judges he can get his hand on period! Hillary may also but with Hillary's penchant for governing by polls and "likability" a strong minority my be able to influence more moderate judges.

As to the another credible argument against, streetwise, mentioned we can beat Obama on "ideas" (I assume he means Hillary as well) the only problem with that is we have no one left in the field who can credibly argue from the right's positions and point of view. All have changed their minds and positions. Some hold openly leftest positions on issues and others have even written legislation espousing left leaning positions. With no creditability or longterm stance they will be dismantled post-haste.

Short version - I agree thoroughly!

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

Erick, I am sympathetic to your logic on this. A strong case can be made that we never would have gotten Reagan without Carter and his huge Democratic majorities in Congress which completely disgusted the country. We also never would have gotten Newt Gingrich without the disgust created by Bill Clinton and his Dem majorities. Hillary and a Dem Congress would likely result in the same. And only from those ashes would a genuine conservative realignment start again.

But perhaps a McCain presidency would accomplish much of the righteous rage without as much of the long term damage. By that I mean, McCain would likely rile up conservatives with all the deals he strikes with Ted Kennedy.

But at the very least, he'd put at least halfway decent judges on the SCOTUS. I know we say this every four years, but the next president really is likely to have two appointments in his first term. Social Security Administration actuarial tables say that an 87 year old male (Stevens) has an average of 4.59 years to go, and a 14 percent chance of dying within one year. Ginsburg has had cancer and just doesn't look too good. And who knows about Souter. Given two openings for lifetime appointments, it could take decades to unravel the damage done by two Hillary appointments with a Dem Senate confirming. At least with McCain, or any Republican, we'd get Anthony Kennedy at worst which is still infinitely better than another Stevens or Ginsburg for 30+ years. Remember, the SCOTUS is co-equal to the POTUS.

Let it be Hillary. Erick's right, any Democrat will try to destroy this country (and probably have some success), but at least Hillary can take down her own party in the process.

I sure do feel sorry for the Iraqis though.

This post is the equivilant of the Democrats who root against America in Iraq out of vindicativeness for George Bush.

This is a perfect example of partisanship above patriotism. Unbelieveable.

As someone who is left of center myself, I admittedly have opposed many of President Bush's policies in favor of my own policy preferences, but I always hoped to be proved wrong.

I would hope that whoever the next president is, regardless of party, we will all be rooting for their success becuase ultimately, their success is America's success.

Regards.

in a stream of conciousness sort of way - it's an idea, however let's try to get the best, most conservative president elected. Let's also work to get as many conservatives elected to the House & Senate as we can... If we do this we'll all feel better in the morning - Jan 21, 2009!