There's Movement in Mordor And We Can't Afford to Sit Idly By
Let's Draw From Peggy Noonan's Points
By Erick Posted in Elections — Comments (89) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Have you read Peggy Noonan today? If not, you should. It was one of those "aha!" columns that makes some simple points anyone could make, but so few actually do. And the two points just smack you across the face if you're already in one of those melancholy, "Why can't the GOP get its s*** in gear" moods.
She writes of D.C. political apparatchiks
They serve and rarely leave. So often people work in government and make it more of a swamp; then they leave and become mosquitoes living off the pond scum, buzzing off the surface, eating well, issuing their little stings.I am harsh. But it's something I often wonder: Why don't people in Washington go home anymore?
That's profound point one. Profound point two is even better.
The Bush people don't seem to spend much time on loyalty to the party per se, only to their guy.
And there you have it. My point exactly. Now, you're probably lost on what my point is, as I haven't said it, but I've been saying it for a while (have you been listening). These two points Mrs. Noonan makes sum up so much of your frustration and you don't even know it.
Here's the deal . . .
(Read on)
The GOP has ceased to be a party of ideas. We have John Boehner playing to keep Jerry Lewis on the Appropriations Committee, despite his FBI investigation. He's added to the Appropriations Committee Ken Calvert, also under investigation.
We have Mitch McConnell and the GOP in the Senate caving on earmarks reform, funding bridges to no where, and backing down on judges. We have the White House doing cutesy policy maneuvers, kissing up to China for trade, and reminding people "We gave you John Roberts and Sam Alito and the stem cell veto so suck it up" whenever we point out that they're drifting leftward.
In short, we have a Republican Party that understands politics is just a game and decided to make policy an extension of that game. It's no longer about ideas, it's about retaining power. Have the GOP appropriators even realized they are out of power yet?
For the longest time, "policy as a game" meant supporting the social conservative agenda at the expense of the fiscal conservative agenda. After all, stay at home Christian moms turn out to vote in higher numbers than Club For Growth donors. And when the President made a grand social conservative move like banning government funded stem cell research, they strained to say to the fiscal cons clamoring for a vetoed budget, "Hey, look here, we're stopping government spending on embryo killing. Suck it up."
It's all a game to them. And when they leave the White House, they don't go home to America (D.C. is not America. It is Rome -- an ideal to everyone whose never been there and a pagan political whore house to anyone who has spent too much time there) they stay in D.C. and play the game from the outside for corporations or for various policy initiatives, building unique coalitions for each issue without a united army.
And so it is that the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have begun to split. And so it is that the Republicans act like they were never either -- after all, what good are the social-cons and fiscal-cons if they aren't working together. The problem, of course, is that the Democrats have a pretty good hold on most other groups. ("But hey," the RNC says, "there's always the moderates!")
This leads me to my larger points.
First, it's why I wouldn't be upset with having Rudy as President. Say what you will. Lie if you have to, but he is a fiscal conservative. The social conservatives like me have, at the end of the game, been racking up all the points for our team. So, I'd be quite happy letting a man who is largely a fiscal-con run the show for us social-cons for a while, simply because Rudy understands the coalition. He knows he needs it. He's not going to screw it up. He may not be pro-life, but he's not going to tear out the floor of the party. (I'm still with Fred, but Rudy wouldn't bother me)
Second, while you and I are having our pity party and observing the Republican party cracking up around a lack of ideas, there's life over at Mordor. They are mobilizing behind a set of ideas to entrench their power.
They want the "Employee Free Choice Act" to start growing unions again by denying free choice to employees. They want "clean election laws" to force taxpayers to fund Democratic candidates for office. They want "colonial reform" even. Oh, and they want to "re-locate government spending" to alter the American economy in favor of progressive ideas, e.g. no money for energy exploration, socialized medicine instead.
The left has begun again to organize around socialist ideals. Bush hatred will no longer get them moving forward. They need new energy and they have these new ideas.
Meanwhile, our side is still licking its wounds from 2006 and our leaders have decided to take a "devil may care" attitude and fend for themselves — working to bring each part of our grand coalition back on an "as needed" basis. In the meantime, we don't have the strength to stand against "colonial reform." None of the parts of our coalition really trust or like each other enough to sit in the same room. And even if they did, the Bushies are only about the Bushies and the GOP leadership is only about avoiding more FBI investigations while they dole out the earmarks.
Friends, we need to bring our coalition back together. I don't expect Dick Armey to apologize to Dr. Dobson. And I don't expect Dr. Dobson to back down from his Rudy comments. But the rest of us need to work together again. We need to get out of the "policy is a game" mantra that we, at some point, started living and return to "policy is life."
If we cannot reconnect, we won't get back in the majority. And we start where Peggy Noonan's points leave us. We don't rely on the Bushies to get us where we need to go. And we don't look in Washington; we look outside Washington. We look to leaders leading in the states. We look to activists making differences in the states. We look to ourselves. We're not in the policy as a game. Our pocketbooks, our children's minds, our lives know what their policy victories mean.
So, what are the ideas to reunite the fiscal and social conservatives? What are the ideas one side might have to suck up for the benefit of the other side?
Let's move beyond the punditry folks. We've got enough of those. Now we need thinkers and doers. And we online conservatives, online Republicans, we need to fight -- first to get our party back, then to get back the majority.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | America's Rotten Boroughs — Comments (38) »
There's Movement in Mordor And We Can't Afford to Sit Idly By 89 Comments (0 topical, 89 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I work full time, and I am in college and I don't have time for childishness and petty political fights. I am a Fred Head, but however, I am adult enough to know that I don't throw my allies overboard to spite myself. That is stupid!
I believe that if you are going to have an intra-party squabble, then have it in the primaries, then once the general election comes, you act like an adult and support the party that is closest to your set of beliefs.
All I know that if anyone can say something stupid like Charles Krauthammer did and say that Hillery isn't going to be so bad, be careful for what you wish for, because you will get it.
I am on board to win this for the right reasons, and I mean all of it. I am not a Rudy fan, but he would be a zillion times better than Hillery in the general election.
Thanks for this post Erik!
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
I really don't see a big split between the fiscal-cons and the social-cons here. We've worked pretty well in the past, and there's good hope for it continuing in the future. The Rudy battle exists primarily because your view of Rudy as a coalition-builder seems optimistic, given his actions. Even that's more of a conflict between pro-life-extremists vs. Republican-pessimists.
Problems with our government not being fiscal-con enough are due to not having public support. We need to build here; we ought to be praising the power of free markets to do good. Wouldn't hurt to build up social positions either, instead of just taking advantage of repugnance for Democratic goals.
But that's in line with the part of your post I do agree on. Republican officials have been more interested in keeping power than in ideas. Unfortunately, recycling said officials isn't a workable project. We're going to have to give them a popular movement to lead, instead of them giving us one to follow.
We're going to have to give them a popular movement to lead, instead of them giving us one to follow.
All boiled down, that's my point exactly.
There are a lot of good, newer ideas at the state level for GOPers. TABORs, school choice, and opposing eminent domain abuse are all new topics that are good for conservatives in the long run and good for the country.
On a national level, a renewed belief in good government and a sincere effort to fight corrupt earmarking would resonate with a lot of disaffected voters. But there are too many Rs who are "more interested in keeping power than in ideas."
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I've been reading RedState (and the comments!) for probably a year now, and this is the first time I've been spurred on to leave my own comment.
The idea that really caught me was Eric's DC/Rome comparison.
Hopefully this question won't get me blammed by Moe, Streiff, or the other powers that be (Moe, you make me laugh all the time, please don't squash me!!):
What if the most damaging divisions in this country are not marked by ideological differences, but rather by the beltway itself. What if the key tension is amateur versus professional?
Example: I don't agree with Neil Stevens on everything, but I do love his wit, passion and dedication. Isn't that point of convergence more important then where we stand on schip?
Does it really matter that Larry Craig is a Republican or that William Jefferson is a Democrat? What unites them is a moral agnosticism that is toxic to the future of this country. The crucial question is: what unites the rest of us?
I think there if there's one thing we can all agree on it's that none of us want to end up like Rome. Be they Ostrogoths or Jihadi maniacs, the effect would be the same.
I'll get off my soapbox now...
Two or three pretty good observations there. Don't wait so long before making your next comment.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
Thanks, Erick!
Not sure how much more posting I have time for, but I'll definitely keep reading. Your site keeps me informed + entertained...
And I don't think our people have the desire yet.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When Republicans were on the ascent, their ideas were public policy ideas that were also conservative ends in themselves. Things like lower taxes, less social engineering, re-separation of the judicial and legislative powers, all of these things were designed because they were good public policy or because they were good philosophical ideas in and of themselves.
At that openleft link you give, every last one of those ideas is put up there only for the idea of building leftist power. None of them is put up there because it is a good idea in-and-of itself; indeed most of those ideas in a vacuum should be anathema to the left's ideals (taking away workers' secret ballot, encouraging centralized cities, rejuvenating the fairness doctrine). It's like a caricature of what the leftists have accused the Bush Administration of being about for the past seven years.
Commenters here have said on several anti-Rudy threads that we can survive a Hillary administration. I don't think these posters understand what is going on here, and the stakes the left is playing for now. If there is a President Hillary with 5-10 more Democrats in the House and 56 Democrats in the Senate (probably where I put the over-under right about now), it's pretty much game over for us for the next generation. Unless we have a great 2010, they will control the 2012 redistricting, and will use the Texas and Georgia (and Colorado) re-redistrictings as excuses to gut what leverage the Republicans have in the House, just as they did in 1982. The re-instated fairness doctrine (with millions of internet activists waiting to file complaints against talk radio channels) will decimate our ability to get our message out. Card check legislation will force millions of people into unions, which fattens the unions' coffers through mandatory dues, which creates yet another well-funded anti-Republican outlet.
That says nothing of the new entitlements. We can't get rid of the friggin' Americorpse pork barrel program of paid "volunteers" that Clinton I pushed through in his first term. How in the name of all that is holy do you think that we'll get rid of Hillary's national health care plan (which gives you the "choice" between paying for a national plan and paying for participating in your own plan, or just paying for a national plan) or her 401K matching plan? We defeated Hillarycare I because the left was arrogant and un-unified. The 57 Democrats in the Senate in 1993 included several Democrats who would probably be comfortable in the Republican party today (and two who actually are now Republicans). Those members are gone, and this Senate is much, much more liberal, and will only be more so in 2008. Democrats have learned their lesson; no one is going to oppose this plan because it isn't single payer, because they know it is a significant step in that direction. And the history of the last seventy years is that as a citizenry becomes dependent on the government teat it loses its willingness and ability to fend for itself, and the programs never die. And at that point, the independent citizenry ceases to exist, and there is only the state.
The left knows this. Some of them think "it will be different this time." Some of them know it won't. Indeed they hope it won't, because they hope that they will get to play the part of Dzerzhinsky.
In the meantime, we pat ourselves on the back that no one is talking about raising the top rate above 40% right now. And then we seem curious about how Dems plan to pay for these entitlements at the same time that Medicare and Social Security outlays are about to explode. The Democrats are fully aware of this. They know full well that to pay for these new entitlements ten years down the road as well as social security that we'll have to go back to 70%+ rates for the "rich". THAT IS THE IDEA. And by slashing the bottom rates more than the top rates, President Bush moved more people off the income tax altogether, making tax cuts a harder less. And by sunsetting all of them in 2010, he actually gave Dems the semi-plausible argument that by letting the top rate cuts naturally go up to their pre-Bush levels while affirmatively preventing the lower cuts from doing that, that they are voting for a middle class tax cut.
This is the opposite of starving the beast. This is setting government expenditures on a permanently upward trajectory, knowing that the country would rather take more from the "rich," rather then cut the fruits of this redistribution.
And while we're flagellating ourselves over the fact that one of our frontrunners wouldn't sign a bill to outlaw abortion -- which would be unconstitutional under the current court and will remain unconstitutional for the next twenty years after Clinton replaces Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter (forty if she gets Scalia and Kennedy in a second term) -- the left is on the move, and is gunning to make sure that it never loses the ground it lost in 1980 again.
This is it folks. This is the big one. If they win this one flat-out, it really might be the end of this country, or at least this country as anything I grew up believing in. Support whomever you want in the primary. But if you really consider yourself a conservative or a lover of freedom, you'll line up for the big fight behind whomever the more conservative candidate is in 2008, and I can promise you it won't be Hillary.
We Absolutely must unify. There is no room for grandstanding power plays at this point. They are luxuries for the winners after the game is over.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
missing the point here. It's that we need a positive agenda to beat Hillary. For all the dire predictions of what a Hillary presidency would mean, the tactic of running against someone isn't likely to work out better now than it did in 1996 or 2004.
As for Rudy, I don't see the point in starting up the debate again. It's not as if anything's likely to change.
"As for Rudy, I don't see the point in starting up the debate again. It's not as if anything's likely to change."
Yep as long as one sides attitude is "Be reasonable do it our way" and won't even accept the idea that they will be advancing their agenda even if they don't get 100% there truly is no point.
Well have a good time in the U.S.S.A. which is what we will be after Shrillary and crew.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Sure can't be the anti-Rudy side, since we're not asking for 100% of anything. Guess you've joined us, then? :)
Some are more important than others of course lets go down the list
1. Humanity (this includes not yet born humans)
2. The US of A because like it or not we are still the best hope of number 1
3. The republican party because its the only vehicle for my next 2
4. The pro life agenda. This would be at the top but without 1-3 its got no chance.
5. The limited government agenda. Ditto pro life reasons
I toss my own personal desires somewhere amongst the above.
Where do you prioritize yours ? Just how Will going third party advance your sides ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
on threads where this was copiously explained. I presume the questions are rhetorical. The alternative, that you actually want to see another pro-life/anti-Rudy thread, seems unlikely.
We share at least one point in common. We apparently both rank it up near the top.
So I ask my questions because, I don't understand how taking gas out of the firetruck is going to save babies in the burning building.
If you can tell me how tossing the election to She Who Will Infuriate, will save one more baby than electing a moderate republican, I will certainly have to think about doing the same.
My take on this is that many SoCons don't get how Social Conservatism and Small Government conservatism are actually just different sides of the same thing. Living a moral life, taking care of your family, helping your community are all reinforced by people not being forced to depend on the government. When people are in charge of their own lives and are able to make positive differences they don't need to cry to the Nanny State. Its a virtuous cycle that feeds itself. Faith grows from this as well, because people become better acquainted with their own good fortunes and just how lucky they are.
To be fair on this the reverse holds true for Fiscal/Small government conservatives. Its just they aren't the ones threatening to stop that firetruck at this point.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I know we need a positive agenda to win (though let's not forget that running against Bush came pretty darned close to succeeding). But I think there's a larger point that was missed in Erick's thread, which is the Democrats' ideas aren't public policy ideas. That's not their goal this time around. Their goal is first to drive a stake through the heart of the social and fiscal conservative movements, before they get around to remaking society. They want to take care of the backlash before they make the changes. Which is why we should all be very, very afraid.
As for Rudy, I will have that debate again and again and again. The stakes are too high. If this was 2000, or if the Democrats were just looking to break even in the Senate and the House, I might be sympathetic. That's not where we are. Now if James Dobson still wants to stamp his feet, pick up his toys and go sit in the corner because Republicans' didn't nominate a candidate that will kiss his ring, that's his business. But I won't see this country get taken down the road to serfdom because of an imperfect candidate, and will fight the attitude that enables that in this forum as many times as I possibly can. Mike Huckabee is pretty much the opposite of what I'd like to see in a Republican nominee (except that he puts the most friendly face on being a SoCon the country has seen since Reagan), but you can bet I will give $2300 to his cigarette-banning nanny-statist bohiney if he wins the nod. And I hope this openleft post demonstrates why all need to do this, regardless of who our nominee is.
We already know that President Clinton is a Bad Thing, though perhaps not as bad as you make out. The question is whether Rudy is better, if you're much more concerned with abortion and social issues than with creeping socialism. That includes what happens in 2012 and beyond.
To that end, a positive thread on Rudy is going to get you a lot farther than slamming Hillary. I don't think he gives you a lot of positives to talk about, but apparently you disagree.
As to the other points:
* I'm not the only social con who has written against Huckabee as someone who can't unite the party. Others have written against Ron Paul and McCain. Rudy doesn't get a free pass.
* My decision about supporting a pro-choice candidate was made long before Dobson announced anything. I really doubt I'm alone here.
I don't see how you can realistically say that Rudy isn't better than Hillary on social issues, if for no other reason than he's come out for the pba ban, strict constructionist judges, and against gay marriage. On other less high-profile social issues, like smut peddling, he's probably done more than any politician in the country to actually effectuate positive change.
But I still think you don't get the stakes here. Hillary + 56+ Dem Senators + 240+ Dem Representatives means there is a very good chance that there is no 2012. Our infrastructure will be destroyed by the Dems. They are out to crush us, and with those numbers they will be able to. There certainly won't be a viable pro-life movement, because Roe will be enshrined as the law of the land for at least another generation and Hillary will be able to appoint Brennan/Marshall/Douglas types to the Court without fear of filibuster. Whatever little progress has been made with the partial birth abortion ban will be nullified if God forbid, Nino eats too much pasta with alfredo sauce and kicks it in 2010. And there will be nothing we can do to stop it.
A Rudy Presidency means that the Court will almost certainly move to the right; we may disagree about whether or not he'll appoint Robertses or Thomases -- given his views on the War on Terror and crime I think he will -- but even a Kennedyesque replacement for Stevens and Ginsburg is a massive step in the right direction on the issues you care about. I don't know how Justice Kennedy will vote on the constitutional right to gay marriage when it comes up, but I sure know where Stevens and Ginsburg will go.
And this isn't about creeping socialism anymore. That was the Bush Administration. This is it. There's no turning back from what they're about to do to us.
Neither Huckabee, Paul, or McCain is my ideal Republican. In fact, none of these guys are. But I'll support any of them to the bone against the Dems.
it dependes on whether you believe him or not. Especially about "strict constructionist". His definition is a little loopy, considering it's compatible with Roe vs. Wade as is. Even this is just a promise, which he'll be hard pressed to maintain against a Democratic Congress. Will he really expend his political capital for this?
And, oh yes, he's promised not to be effectively pro-lfe. So if his promises are worth anything...
If we elect this guy, I'm seeing 8 years of pro-abortion judges, minimum. (A primary challenge against a sitting President is a bad joke.) Plus the Republican party is confirmed in becoming pro-abortion for political convenience.
Hillary's judges will be even worse over 4 years - but that's only 4 years for judges to retire in. I think we'll still have a shot at getting that 5th anti-Roe vote. I don't see that shot post-Rudy.
A lot of lefties had similar thoughts when they voted for Nader in '00.
You're right, I don't have a crystal ball for you. I can't promise that Rudy will keep his promise re judges. I pretty much suspect that he will, because I don't think he cares about abortion that much, but I do think he cares about the GWOT and crime and such a LOT. And the types of judges who have the philosophy Rudy will want on the Court re GWOT and crime will be the type that will vote to overturn Roe. (I can get into the details of his strict constructionist comment, but I reckon its futile). With Rudy you get a shot, and a pretty good shot at that, at replacing Stevens and Ginsburg with an anti-Roe Justice.
But I CAN promise that Hillary will keep her promise to her base, and that she'll move the Court leftward. There are far worse Justices than Stevens and Ginsburg out there, and we can expect to see them from her if she has 56+ Dem Senators to work with.
And I don't know why you think Rudy would win 8 years, but Hillary would win only four. This is where the other stuff I'm talking about comes in. The creeping socialism isn't distinct from social liberalism. It's a reverse wedge issue, a way to bind the middle and working classes to the Democratic party despite their social liberalism. That's my entire point is that the Left isn't just about putting forward some odious programs this time, they're about doing it in a way to forge a permanent ruling majority where fiscal liberalism keeps the middle and working class in their thrall, social liberalism keeps the people who can afford 70% marginal rates in their camp, and things like the fairness doctrine and card check keep their foot on the neck of the right.
Four years of Hillary is enough to shore up three of the five pro-Roe votes. At that point, we have to hope that we win in '12 or Breyer and Kennedy get replaced by her as well, and we have six pro-Roe Justices under the age of sixty. I can virtually assure you, if Hillary wins, Roe will not be overturned in your lifetime, and I'm assuming you're pretty young like me.
If Roe had already been overturned I could see the logic in your position. If Republicans held Congress or were likely to win it back next time, I could see your position. But this is madness.
how I feel. Things are lined up right now for catastrophy.
Hillary will turn her back on GWOT to consentrate on her social agenda. If we survive this error, and that's a BIG if, the tidal wave of socialism that is coming will forever change this country.
The changes to the court will be huge especially if she gets a second term, and she will if the jihadists haven't nuked us into submission by then. If she gets two terms the liberal controlled SCOTUS and Dem controlled congress will choke conservatisim to death along with freedom.
So go ahead and let this happen by not taking the witch seriously and Roe/Wade will be the least of our problems.
comment I take the "least of our problems" back as killing the unborn will never be the least. However we must be alive and free to do anything about it.
A good bigger picture perspective.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
Don't you think we are pretty far down the socialism highway already? We don't have much farther to go before we would be unrecognizable to one of the founding fathers....
the end of America, but at the end of Hillary's first tern we will have nationalized health care, two young leftists to replace G&S, a swarm of leftist judicial nominations that will fly non-stop thru the Senate (G14 will be a bitter memory, thanks McCain), the DoEd will be twice it's current size, the GWB tax cuts will be gone and the WoT will have been declared "won" and turned over to the UN.
Then we'll have her second term to to look forward to.
Bottom line, once in place there will be no turning back.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Why isn't there already no turning back after the 'reforms' of the turn of the last century Progressives, or the New Dealers, or the Great Society people?
We've endured multiple bouts of statism in the past. I'd rather not have another, but I just don't buy that suddenly it's the end of the world if Clinton becomes President.
If there's seiorusly no turning back then we already lost and getting worked up is *already* pointless.
I forgot about Social Security being privitized along with Medicare. I remember celebrating the closure of the DoEd. Oh, and there was that great day when the leadership of the Democratic Party apologized to the American people for the War on Poverty.
Newt managed to get welfare at the federal level scaled back before the Rs proved they were really just Ds in disguise (legislators all). Other than that, there has been no movement away from the slide to socialism. Eight years of Hillary will give us another New Deal, another Great Society. And it will also give us an unassailable court system packed with young aggressive liberal jurists who will make the Warren Court years look like the height of conservative jurisprudence.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
in his willingness to tackle tough problems, like social security (see debate comments), energy, birthright citizenship, etc.
http://race42008.com/2007/09/18/how-can-i-not-endorse-the-foghorn-to-my-...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If Fred is our nominee Hillary will win in a landslide, and it would be our own fault for putting up a weak (at best) candidate. Fred is a good guy, I just don't think he's a good candidate.
**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
out. Seriously.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You've got a Thompsonite (Hunter S., not Fred) like me not only reading, but Commenting, so kudos (I think).
Strongly agree with you regarding comparisons to Rome, and the shifting goals of D.C. (not just Republicans in my opinion) from good government to the maintenance of power... no honesty, hatred of accountability, hypocrisy everywhere, and Visigoths hammering at the gates with Big Fricking Hammers...
I don't entirely support the assumption that fiscal and social conservatives Should harmonize again, but then I'm one of those wild-eyed anarchists in favor of a three-party system. Of course, I'm not entirely certain that both of these groups could stand entirely apart, so reunion would probably be a better outcome than total division (no one, I think, wants to see the United States come under the sway of a one-party government).
Do agree, however, that punditry is not in our nation's best interests; that the Republican party (and any other) must function as a cohesive unit to be effective, for better or for worse; and that a fiscal conservative like Rudy wouldn't be a bad choice for our next President.
If D.C. is Rome then New York is Corinth.
The problem with trading conservative ideas for power is that without following the ideas, the base soon tires of the blowhard politicians.
Nice T-shirt - gonna get me one of those.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
I don't mind the idea of Rudy as President as long as a fairly broad coalition of Republicans is what puts him there, with particular emphasis on fiscal conservatism: taking care of the real, impending crises in entitlement programs that are directly threatening the lives of our children and our grandchildren as Americans.
I think that Rudy is a canny fellow and so is Mitt Romney, but the most important thing is giving them the *political capital* to advance and enact the things they need to do, and to give them continuous guidance on those things.
Rudy never struck me as a blockhead or someone who was deaf to the people who put him in office -- he was many things, but he was never someone who didn't listen. So I don't have any objections to him on that score.
The most important thing for our next President is that the Party gets its priorites in order, and those should be the ones that matter most for our country's future in terms of keeping our economy preeminent (not just strong) for the rest of this century. That means that we're going to have to elect someone who can not just make tough choices but have the people in the electorate to back him up.
"...things like immigration reform?"
Well, Rudy worries me about immigration. I think he's a big, big disappointment on immigration, and that's one of my biggest worries about him as President.
But Rudy isn't as big a worry to me on that as the current administration's inability to enforce the law thanks to the circuit courts in California. Rudy's a prosecutor, first and foremost. If he gets the nomination, and becomes the Chief Executive of the United States, I want to see a lot more of the feisty prosecutor I remember from his early days in New York when it comes to the country's immigration laws.
The first step is that businesses have to be told they're not going to be allowed to shoot smack any more in the form of hiring undocumented illegals, and that has to be *enforced.* From that, all else follows. The California courts want to keep American businesses addicted to the drug. Just say no.
You know, I think Rudy has a conservative disposition. That's not to say he is a movement conservative, but I think having a conservative disposition is a good thing for starters. And I think he'd put in charge people like Ted Olson and make his administration a real meritocracy.
anti-crime, tax cutting, welfare-reforming, pro-market type of disposition.
And while he's not a socon, cleaning up the filth and porn of Times Square isn't exactly the sign of a social, anything goes liberal.
Great post, BTW!
a great president. I look at what he did in NYC and am in awe. He is also colorblind, and I love that.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
cutting Soc Sec. Not Mitt or Rudy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Congrats to whoever did it. Erik was it you ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I think Rush doing this with that letter is soooo sweet! Dingy Harry has already declared our troops losers and won't support them in the Senate, so what better way to get him to support them then by auctioning off his letter and give it to a Marine Charity!
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
perennial issue of principle versus pragmatism. With as many as four possible Supreme Court vacancies occuring in the next 4-years, it would be suicidal to us to splinter on principle and usher in another round of incalculable damage by the Clintons. If Dobson or anyone else has any doubts just go examine the various 5/4 decisions during the last two Supreme Court Terms!
You are absolutley right! The Bush team is no longer concerned about the party, and I dont know that they where ever concerned about the movement. We need new leadership now! We need a Sarkozy. I am supporting Fred because of his Federalist views, we need that kind of leadership again! But if Rudy is the nominee I will cast my vote for him, albeit without enthusiasm. Rudy could be very good for the party because of his ability to lead, but he could also be a total disaster because of his penchant for drama in his personal life.
The whorehouse revolves areound an arm's-length, freely negotiated commercial transaction whereby the product, pleasureable screwing, is provided upon request for an agreed upon sum.
With DC the screwing is not pleasureable, is provided whether you want it or not and the price moves ever upwards.
I'm a liberal, and my job takes me all over the country, and I like to drink. You can think of me as some kind of bad evangelist for San Francisco liberalism to the bars and saloons of Red State America.
I'm pretty convinced that if the Republicans do not nominate Rudy, then Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS. Because its the center that swing elections in this country (or pretty much any democracy) and your conservative great hopes won't swing the middle back to the Republican fold, particularly when there is so much resentment about the war.
I was in a bar (shock!) in central Alabama a couple of weeks ago, talking to a young-ish lady from a very pro-military background. Family in the USMC, strong links to military tradition, and a strong patriot. (I'm not mocking here). She told me, firstly, that she thought that the war was a terrible mistake. Then, most surprisingly said "Don't tell my family, they'd disown me, but I like Hillary Clinton, I like her healthcare plan".
She was no Birmingham sophisticate or hippy-dippy student, this one, rather the kind of woman that makes up the conservative base in middle America. If you've lost her, then you really are in trouble.
That said, I think that Rudy could pull it off by appealing to the center and characterizing Hillary as a strident and dangerous ultra-liberal. I'm not sure that anyone else on your side could. And I like him. A San Francisco social liberal from hell. Probably wouldnt vote for him, but wouldnt cry in my beer if he won.
My family is in bluer then blue Massachusetts, and they have the same sentiment about Rudy. He is not my choice, I am a Fred Head, but I could live with Rudy versus the alternative for the general election.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
I'm not doubting your word on this, but I find that hard to believe. There is a difference between military and conservative. If she thought that the war was a terrible mistake and likes Hillary's healthcare plan, then she is not the kind of woman that makes up the conservative base in middle America. She is more likely one of the squishy middle.
Perhaps she is a swing voter, but certainly not the base. The reply you are replying to seemed to use the two designations interchangeably.
absentee
So, what are the ideas to reunite the fiscal and social conservatives?
Shift the focus of the war on terror toward the domestic front; take heed of the subversives and saboteurs in our midst; strike at them.
For the fiscal boys, it's much cheaper. We don't need huge new expenditures of money. We need to carefully craft some laws whereby we can expose the doctrines of the enemy to vigorous prosecution. We may need a new prosecutor, investigator, orator now and then. Not much more.
For social Conservatives, it's the whole enchilada: the maintenance of the character of the Republic. Who are we? Are we a people that is going to shelter and protect the Jihad like its principles are mere free exercise? or are we a people confident enough to say we will stand against this wicked thing?
What was the glue that held the old Coalition together, from the early glory days of NR to Reagan?
It was a clear single thing: the Communist Enterprise. Well the Jihad is no less wicked, and it has already stuck us blows no Communist ever dared.
So let us unite against it. Let opposition to the Jihad be one of our principles.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
but I'm not sure if those who've been vigorously supporting the Iraqi occupation are willing to have us simply come home. I'd be worried about party unity if we tried that.
Is there an endgame that can be arranged? I could go for a continuing base that provides training and assistance against AQI, instead of worrying about Iraq's internal stability.
I'm not sure if those who've been vigorously supporting the Iraqi occupation are willing to have us simply come home.
Nothing so drastic as that. I spoke of "shifting the focus" "toward the domestic front"; of "taking heed of the subversives and saboteurs in our midst" and "striking at them."
But as a Party we begin to organize ourselves as if we really meant business in saying the Jihad is a wicked enemy.
_____________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
With running a guy who's primarily a fiscon, but if when you say that Rudy is someone who understands the importance of coalitions and won't betray the socons, are you basing this on his courageous decision to endorse Mario Cuomo for Governor of New York because, and I quote, George Pataki was a "far-right winger" who was "hand-picked by Alphonse D'Amato"? Really? I mean, are we claiming now that Rudy is a committed party guy - who's committed to all factions of the party, really? When he went before NARAL, et al to attack Pataki as a fake pro-choicer, really?
I have a response to that, which is pretty much the same response that I have to "Rudy will appoint strict contructionist judges!"
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
Economically, NYC was on its rear end in 1994, which made being on the right side of the Governor a prudent political move for a mayor. No one thought Pataki had a chance vs Cuomo. (It's part of the landscape for GOP mayors - both Fiorello La Guardia and John Lindsay had stormy relationships with their parties, which in Lindsay's case resulted in divorce.)
Ironically, after one fiscally prudent term, Pataki went native when the economy turned around and became a big spender. Rudy was the more fiscally responsible of the two in terms of the big picture. Pataki was business-as-usual in the Cuomo mold.
Pataki & Rudy kissed and made up in subsequent elections, and developed a real friendship after 9/11.
For opposing anyone remotely associated with Senator Pothole, regardless of his reasons.
And is a guy who built his career putting criminals behind bars and shutting down porn shops, who went to court numerous times to stop state-funded obscenity displays, and who wants to continue holding suspected terrorists without a trial, likely to appoint Justices in the mold of Brennan? Or even O'Kennedy?
Really?
Because I'm pretty sure that the types of Justices that will agree with Giuliani on his pet issues are pretty darned likely to vote our way on the lion's share of the social issues too.
You don't score mad NARAL love -- we're not talking "NARAL puts up with him," we're talking "NARAL glowingly endorses him" without having at least one iron in that fire.
If you're suggesting to me that you couldn't screen lawyers to find ones who believe that somewhere in the Ninth, Fourteenth, or Fifty-Fifth Amendments there is a privacy interest that encompasses abortion, and would yield to the executive's interpretation of broad powers, I either need to revise my incredibly high estimate of your intellect or honesty downward.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I'd tend to agree with you. No, I'd agree with you 100%. That is, after all, an area of con law where judicial philosophy doesn't necessarily line up neatly along ideological ines. But we're talking about a whole gamut of issues where Rudy is going to be looking for someone somewhere to the right of Roberts. To get a Justice -- and remember, we're probably talking three or four Justices -- that thinks that the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights include some nebulous right to privacy that encompasses a right to abortion, but who doesn't think that the First Amendment includes a right to distribute pr0n as you see fit or that the Warren Court's jurisprudence on the Fourth Amendment wasn't expansive enough would take some work. I honestly can't think of a single person on the bench who would fit that description, much less four of them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it couldn't be done (you'll have to excuse the overblown rhetoric to that effect, but it's mostly in response to Leon's). I'm just saying that the difficulty of doing it, combined with the truly top-notch conservative legal team Rudy has put together give me quite a lot of reason for optimism, and counter-weights the mad NARAL love that he got as mayor.
Read this and tell me whether you think President Rudy would prefer to have Justice Scalia or Justice Stevens on this issue.
Then consider whether this sort of issue that would be one that would be more or less important to a President Rudy than abortion.
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
Yes, Kyollo is one where Stevens is probably closer to Rudy's view than Scalia's. You could also have probably used Caballes to the same effect, and I would guess the flag burning cases as well (outside the Fourth Amendment context). But I could give you Earls, Lago Vista, Florida v. White, Houghton, Drayton, and a host of other cases where Scalia lines up against most of the lefties.
You may be right. Rudy could care about abortion more than these other issues. The Ted Olson thing could just be for show to win the primary. I'm far from convinced (and I still think what he comes up with will be a heckuva lot better than what Hillary comes up with).
Everyone says that Rudy is running as principled Pro-Choicer, but in the same breath it is O.K. because he will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme court which by implication will overturn Roe vs. Wade.
This doesn't make any sense to me. A "principled" Pro-Choicer would NEVER appoint pro-life friendly judges, otherwise they don't believe in their position. So is it fair to say, that Rudy is "fake" Pro-Choicer and hence not "principled". Or as the liberals would say in the general election that he is a con-artist.
....a committed party guy?
He will abandon the socons so fast once elected it won't be funny. I am a socon, but if he won the primary, he is still better than any of the Dems running.
I'll fight Rudy in the primary, but I will support Rudy in the general, although not too enthusiastically.
The third party talk is party suicide talk. I do not know if anyone remembers the Canadian conservatives and their party split. It relegated them to the wasteland of irrelevance for a long time, until hey got their act together and patched things up. Now they are back in power again.
If anyone talks third party because of Rudy, if he wins the nomination, that is the same irrelevance we will handed to ourselves, and it will be all self inflicted.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
You might try looking into some of his fund raising activities over the last few election cycles, socons sure loved using him then! Funny how abortion wasn't an issue when Rudy was hauling in the big bucks!
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Raising money is something that doesn't require taking policy positions that will affect the outcome of anything concrete, such as appointing a judge. However, Rudy is still a Republican party family member, and I am for one, will not take part in throwing him out either. I would rather have him on board and in the family any day.
I do believe Rudy and I are totally on opposite sides of the abortion issue. However, I would gladly have him rather than Hillery as President.
It's okay to disagree in the primaries, but it is suicidal to disagree during the generals. I for one will not do that except for the most extreme stupidity.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
If one believes that judges do something different than politicians, then it is entirely consistent. If Rudy appoints judges who believe they should decide what the law is and not what they think it should be, that is a consistent position. He seems to be agnostic about whether his appointees would overturn Roe.
He is also consistent that he thinks abortion should be generally legal. That is not at odds with Roe being the law or not.
The only way these idea conflict is if you adopt the liberal view that judges are just politicians in robes. Then appointing a "pro-life judge" would go against your goal of uphold a Constitutional right to abortion.
But I don't think Rudy has that view. I think he would look at judicial philosophy rather than political views when choosing a Justice. And I don't think he would ask specifically about Roe.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
judges, it should not matter what a President's policy preferences are. A judge is an umpire, interpreting a contract, i.e. the Constitution. Judges take an oath to uphold THAT DOCUMENT. That document is what is supposed to guarantee self government.
To that end, Lawyer Rudy has stated that the Kelo eminent domain decision and numerous anti-law enforcement decisions in the past were wrongly decided. Yet, he can't say if he thinks Roe was wrongly decided?
And when it comes to questioning judicial nominees, it would be improper to insist that a judge promise to reverse a past case if the opportunity presents itself, but there is nothing improper in reflecting on past decisions.
The Constitution is not a mystery. It is words on paper, and lawsuits should not be crap shoots in which a litigant should hope that they could get 5 justices to call black, white on a given day.
Rudy made a probably fatal mistake by saying that he thinks an originalist judge in the line of scalia could uphold Roe.
Our law should not resemble arbitrary dice rolls or a wizard behind a curtain. Blood has been shed to acheive self government. A contract signed. That contract confers no right to abortion.
We can read the contract. Can Rudy read? He shows contempt for intelligent people with this silly game libs play with winks, and too many repubs have in years past with all their discretion talk.
We should not be ruled by 5 oligarchs or 1 king.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
when he went through his Senate debacle. Read Slouching Toward Gomorrah. I have heard (though I find it very hard to believe) that Nino is pro-choice as well. No insight on the Chief, though if I recall correctly, Whizzer White was personally pro-life.
Point is, there's not any contradiction there. You can believe that abortion should be legal, but that the Constitution doesn't mandate it.
I have been reading Redstate for a couple of years and this is by far the best post I have ever read. Erick, you are an insightful, honest man.
I agree that the current admin only cares about the current admin. Not about building a strong republican party. As a result this needs to be done without them.
I also agree with Noonans post about Ike leaving and not returning to DC. There is something admirable about that. But I guess there is too much money for the Carvilles and Matalins not to leave and as a result we are subjected to their mugs on television.
Also, if at the national level we are not able to find our voice then I think it is important to do this at the local and state levels and build from there.
All and all I thought this was a wonderful post Erick and I thank you for sharing with the team.
IMO the site has been in the crapper of late for various reasons and for me personally reading this I'm heartened by your reasoned thoughts.
Can anyone think where we would be if Forbes had won back in 2000?
Being a man with strong social conservative values I have no qualms whatsoever with supporting Rudy Giuliani over any and all other republican candidates because on balance I believe he is simply the best person to advance all of our mutual goals.
Like Lincoln, who was personally against slavery but felt the constitution protected it's existence I see Rudy and abortion... he sees the law as it is but again as in with Lincoln I see a man with courage and conviction to try and come at it a new way and forever change the vocabulary, let him push for adoptions or ultrasounds before abortion and go to war with the democrats.
Plus Rudy got it done in NYC, he changed downtown from crime ridden filth, hookers and peep shows to a place where frankly you could take your family.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I think we should keep in mind that even if you are a "fiscal conservative" you are probably still more conservative than the Democratic Party on social policy. We should keep in mind that even if you are a "social conservative" you are probably more conservative than the Democratic Party on fiscal policy. For the large majority of conservatives, the Republican Party is moving both social and fiscal policy in a direction that is closer to our position.
For example, I'm pro-choice but I don't see any reason to allow second trimester abortions and I oppose Roe v. Wade because nothing in the Constitution mandates abortion. So by voting for the Republican party I am voting for the party that wants to shift policy closer to my position. Plus, I don't agree with anything the Democratic party stands for! I'd vote for a social conservative who is moderate on fiscal policy over a social liberal who is liberal on fiscal policy because I am socially moderate and fiscally conservative.
Most conservatives are moderate or conservative on both fiscal and social policy and have no reason to prefer any Democratic candidate! So unless you are socially conservative and fiscally liberal, you should vote for any of the top Republican candidates in the general election.
a social moderate, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He's a social liberal, and he can drag the country that direction much more effectively than Clinton can. That's the way the two-party system works - when the parties agree on something, it happens.
In addition to being a social con, I'm a fiscal conservative. A touch more populist than some here, but quite solid compared to the population as a whole. It just doesn't matter to me as much as abortion, and so I'm willing to sacrifice this interest to stop the nightmare scenario above.
Let me turn this around, and ask what fiscal cons gain by supporting Giuliani in the primary. I mean, he's certainly better than Huckabee, but we have lots of candidates better than Huckabee. It's not clear Rudy is more electable than our other candidates, even without considering Republican defections. Better early name recognition isn't going to be relevant post-convention.
If we're willing to accept (ugh) Hillary, we're clearly willing to accept a lot to avoid Rudy. Sure there's nothing else you'd rather have?
If elected he has the best chance of taking an entrenched liberal power structure in washington an shrinking or at least slowing its rate of growth. Romney is a distant second. The problem with Romney is he isn't called multiple choice Mitt for nothing. You worry about Rudy's positions, I am still not certain what Romney's are.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mitt would say he has to talk to lawyers and then discuss a hypothetical? and then say
lineitemveto 10 times
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
that one thing here that exacerbates the divide is that, by and large, the Republican political establishment is comfortable with the concept of Realpolitik, and has no problems applying it to internal party decisions. So they've decided that Rudy may be a social liberal, fiscal moderate, but at least he's theirs, and they assume that everyone thinks like them and will just line up behind the choice.
But they don't understand that there are a ton of people out there who aren't comfortable with realpolitik at all, find the idea basically disturbing. Sure, they know it goes on, but it's not something they care to think about.
Look, I'm a Fred-head, and I haven't ruled out voting for Rudy if he gets the nod. In fact, I probably would. But I'd have zero excitement about it. Because I know that if Rudy gets the nomination and somehow manages to beat Hillary, as unlikely as I believe that to be, I'm going to spend the next 4 years having to fight with my own party. And frankly, I'm tired of the fighting I've already had to do, on Harriet Miers, and immigration "reform", on the bridge to nowhere. Four more years of fighting with my own party would probably ensure that at the end of it, it's not my party any more.
1st - Principles
What are the principles that define what is means to be an American conservative?
1. Self Determination
2. Self Reliance
3. Personal Responsibility
4. Small Government
5. Strong National Defense
6. Equal Opportunity
When we abandon any one of these principles we lose support from our base and credibility from moderate and independent voters.
2nd – Ideas
As Erik implies, what good are great principles unless they result in equally great ideas? I submit we have plenty of ideas but we need to focus on those that are achievable, expand our voter base, and strongly support our principles.
For example:
School Choice: The school voucher efforts need to be strongly and nearly exclusively pushed as a reform to provide equal opportunity for minority children. The public school system is a disaster for minorities and vouchers will provide parents with the leverage they need to improve education in this country. We and our candidates need to hammer away at this as a minority and equal opportunity issue.
3rd – Confidence
As we hold to our principles and continue to have great ideas we will prevail in the end. The Democrats are on top now but their coalition is built almost entirely on anti-war sentiment. Eventually the war will be over or at least most of our forces will be returning home and the Democrats will have a very difficult time holding on to their gains.
4th – Support
We need to look to the candidates that most support our principles and get behind them in a big way. Let’s not support someone because of how they match up with the other party’s nominee. Lets consider their electability yes but not at the expense of some of our basic principles. If the best candidate has some minor weaknesses let’s help him or her over come, if possible, those issues with stronger directed support not disparaging remarks.
5th – Communicate
We need to all get on the same page and speak consistantly the same message about our shared principles. We need to bite our lips over some of our individual principles and ideas and speak more about those that we share and those that will help us promote our common principles.
which you've got exactly backwards.
Quote: "And we online conservatives, online Republicans, we need to fight -- first to get our party back, then to get back the majority."
Regaining the majority at this moment in time is more important than the soul of the party. Once we drive a stake through the heart of the political left, then we can go about cleaning our own house.
preface: I am undecided.
As much heat as Dobson has taken, he doesn't spend time being confused about what he believes or stands for. I didn't see the original Hannity interview footage, but Dobson says he was talking about the primaries. Either way, we each have our bottom line of values & he has his; he is not a politician anyway.
We do need to get together but we need to use our heads when voting in the primaries. Should we get gang-busters behind someone only to find out they just aren't right for even Republicans?! Then we can say nighty-nite to '08 aspirations and enjoy fond remembrances of how well Dole-Clinton went for us.
I say we unite on this: we have certain core values that can't be fulfilled by ONE candidate. We have to make the best choice, while keeping our heads and looking at the big picture as well as all Dem frontrunners. We're looking for a leader who can stand up for both who THEY are and for what WE need for this party and country.
We could shoot lotsa holes in the front runners (and Dobson) so the Dems don't have to, or we could promote our ideas via candidates we support. As opposed to us, I think the Dems really understand what losing means.
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_