Keep it Together, Part 3
Why we need to get through this
By Ben Domenech Posted in Republicans — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Keep it in the huddle, boys and girls.
You're starting to listen, feels like. That's a good thing. One or two more things to say.
We've got to remember what this is all about.
We're all frustrated and angry. But don't give into the temptation to play angry, to play frustrated. We can't make it about hating those other guys and their horrible teams. We can't let them make this out to be about anger, about fear.
We've got to remember what this is REALLY about.
They want to keep on pretending that the cheap ideas they've been selling for decades actually work. They want to keep on pretending that Cuba has better medicine than we do. They want to keep on using the tax code to divide us and penalize success. They want to make arguments about education and jobs about the old divisions of class and race. They want to pretend that the definition of family can be anything they say it is, without any consequences. They want to pretend that if our soldiers just stop killing terrorists, al Qaeda will go away. And they keep insisting that government knows best - that if we just give it more money and more power, eventually, they'll get it right.
We know these are lies. We know their solutions don't work. And most Americans know that, too. We just have to show them the truth.
You know what this is all about? Just look at two people, and you'll see what this is all about.
You remember this guy? Almost forgot about him, did ya? Well, he doesn't forget.
He's a big damn hero. He went through hell to get to where he is. And then, when the opportunity came to give him some help, we got lucky - we got two great guys in there. You can only win lucky for so long. We can't count on that again. And we want our heroes leading the charge, not just being brilliant and principled in the minority.
This other guy, you don't know who he is. But he's one of my heroes.
He's going to need some help when he's over there. He's going to need our help, because lord knows the tater tots on Capitol Hill who want to play funding games with the men and women overseas aren't going to give him any help. The nutroots won't let 'em.
Let's be clear about this: If we go off by ourselves, and play against them AND against each other, it won't MATTER who's got the headset. It won't MATTER we get to call the plays. And that big damn hero, and my brother - they won't get any more help than what they have to beg for from Harry frickin Reid. For god knows how long.
Don't play angry. Don't be like they were when they were in our situation. Play like a team, because that's playing smart. That's playing to win.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Keep it Together, Part 2 — Comments (81) »
Keep it Together, Part 3 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The entire point - particularly emphasized in the second installment - is that it doesn't matter who the nominee is, this all still applies and we'll still get nothing done if we don't work together. The mistake people make is thinking about everything in terms of who the nominee is in '08 - something which isn't all that important in the scheme of things for the conservative movement.
I'm pretty sure it was Neal's diary that started the whole flap (and took a different position than RSR's), and I'm pretty sure I recommended that one, too. I usually recommend diaries because I think they're well written and insightful, not necessarily because I agree with them. While I disagree with a Rudy nomination for tactical reasons, I'd still vote for him. I recommended Dan's diary today about Mitt, and while I have many of the same issues with a Romney nomination, I'd vote for him, too.
But the whole point of this is that it doesn't matter if you would vote for these guys or not if that's ALL you're going to focus on. Rudy or Romney or anyone else, we still have the same issues in front of us, and political realities demand that we cooperate if we're to make any progress. It won't matter who's president if the Democrats have a 60+ majority in the Senate, a very real possibility; it won't matter if they continue to try and defund our troops in the field; and it won't matter who gets nominated to the Supreme Court.
I am deeply -- very deeply -- on board with the 'let's pull together' thought expressed in this series -- which is why, in large part I am exceedingly displeased with faction who are threatening to sit on their hands if Rudy is the nominee.
I missed the Neil diary, but yeah, the diary count on both sides is probably at least 10. I didn't go around checking to see which ones you recommended, but your word is good enough, and that explains my disconnect. I know that when I look at the recommenders list, I tend to read that as people who are 'dittoing' the contents. That's why I wanted to ask for clarification.
So, keep it up, I'm in. And I'm all about the war, the judges (GOD bless Justice Thomas too), getting Roe overturned, BCFR repealed, Dept of Education disbanded, taxes down, regulation down, and all that. And as you point out, that involves the Senate and House races as well as the top of the card.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Good. I fear that far too many people are putting all their eggs in one basket, to the detriment of the movement as a whole.
I want to come together as well, but I simply can not ignore the fact that this is NOT an even fight. I have yet to see any serious poster on this blog EVER say they will leave the party if Huckabee or Brownback win. Only one "side" is making threats and showing to be fair weather Republicans.
I have issues with EVERY candidate and a huge one with Rudy of the 2A. Yet I know a bit about politics and the true ability of a President to influence particular issues. A Republican president is not going to get a new Clinton Gun Ban through Congress nor will he be able to put a Jocelyn Elders on the Supreme Court, our Congressional Republicans will see to that. Furthermore, if we lose the presidency there will be thousands of new leftists in charge of our government, in Congress and in and around the Executive Branch.
Rudy is not running for president to make Roe v Wade a super duper law on double secret probation.
Molon Labe!
The irony of "Keep it Together" delivered in parts is not lost on me.
Linguistic hijinks aside the message that we need build a new majority and electable POTUS one issue at a time is indeed timely and appropriate,
I have another friend headed for MNF North shortly. His biggest concern is he will not get to finish the mission because of politics. I aim to make that the last issue he will need to worry about.Huddle-up.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I was concerned about the same thing, as you can see by my diaries from then.
Nothing scares our military men and women in iraq as much as the fear that they will leave the job half finished, and that we will leave the sacrifices of our brothers and sisters there in defeat.
For the sacrifice and service to our country. You guys always seem to lead by example and pull together. Certainly a posture we should all emulate with respect to this threads subject.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
We MUST remember as we go through this insanely long primary season that the number one goal MUST be to defeat Hillary and her allies in Congress. This insistence on ideological purity, including the INSANE idea that would call for a third party candidate if Rudy got the nomination, does nobody any favors.
The country cannot afford another 4 years of a Clinton in the White House. So let's remember this as we go through the primary season. The way I see it, the four main candidates (Rudy, Fred, Mitt, and Huckabee) would all make fine Presidents who would push us in the right direction on the war and taxes (although Rudy needs to adopt the Fairtax STAT, IMHO.)
Regardless, all four would be a thousand percent better than Hillary or any of the other liberals, and we need to remember 1992 when we consider our options.
"I just disproved my own argument. Where's my degree from Paul Maguire University??" -- Bill Simmons
I can't get interested in politics based on hate for a person. Waving a cardboard cutout of Senator Clinton doesn't throw me into a berserker rage, ready for battle.
If the Republican party goes bankrupt on ideas, such that its only purpose is to oppose the Democrats, then I'm out of here.
Fortunately I don't think that's the case though.
I'm saying that I'm in favor of winning the war, reforming the tax code (I'm a fairtax proponent), and nominating strict constructionists to the federal bench and SCOTUS. I'm one of those pragmatists.
Simply stated, Rudy, Fred, Mitt, or Mike Huckabee would advance that agenda. Who else is out there who would?
And stopping the Democrats is a big part of the agenda.
"I just disproved my own argument. Where's my degree from Paul Maguire University??" -- Bill Simmons
Back in December 2001, "if we members of the vast right-wing conspiracy don't get back to our daily routine of obsessive Clinton-bashing, then the terrorists will have won."
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Nobody's asking me to hate that man and telling me he'll destroy the country, so I don't know what you mean.
you said "I can't get interested in politics based on hate for a person."
I just asked if this applied to Rudy as well.
Molon Labe!
Perhaps "hate" is too strong a word. I certainly don't outright hate any particular individual or ascribe to that as a tactic. However, it is the strength and basis of our ideas that makes any discussion of Hillary an emotional one; somewhat of a cause and effect.
However, what are one's emotions suppossed to be about a person who stands against everything this country is about? A person who believes in socialism above capitalism, increasing the size and scope of government, punitive taxation, lies above truth, class warfare, military subjugation, etc. A person who stood by her husband's side and said nothing as the military-intelligence apparatus meant to protect us was destroyed, leading to September 11th. A person who uses deception and imposture as a modus operandi. A person who behind closed doors gives imprimatur to every 1960's circa leftover, America/military hating group including MoveOn, et al.
Should I wait for the final denouement and then, say, loath or detest her?
Honestly, there is enough for folks with weak-will to immediately "hate" her. Nonetheless, it is as I said cause and effect. In other words, the deep belief in our ideas, ideals and her fundamental dishonesty coupled with contra intellectualism causes an immediate Pavlovian response.
I understand your point and we should not get lost in this. However, there is a very good reason for Hillary's high negatives.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
There's a great difference, don't you think? Think of it this way: If you see something far off coming down the track, you'd better put on your glasses to see if it's a locomotive or a tricycle. That's all.
We've already had eight years of a Clinton machine. Acting like we don't know it's already active and in place would be foolish. You've suggested a HDS in other posts. I don't think it's like BDS. At least for me. BDS was more because the Democrats couldn't accept the outcome of two elections and came up with completely laughable delusional stuff. He was behind 9/11, Rove stuff, etc.
We cannot underestimate. I think Hillary's agenda/machine is a locomotive.
=======
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
I wish we could plop it on top of the recommended diaries.
I say this having piled on Rudy, feeling somewhat gratified that others are feeling as I feel about the man. But that's a personal thing for me; I am much more a social conservative than a Republican. If someone is a through-and-through Republican, they should take Rudy over Hillary every day,
the majority here do NOT have a "personal problem" with Rudy and the VAST majority of Republicans do not have a personal problem with him. This fight is not about abortion, this fight is about tearing our own party apart. Not one person here can show why Rudy would hurt the pro life cause. Furthermore, most of the RUDY HATERS completely ignore Dobson's black balls of Fred, John, and Mitt.
Molon Labe!
"Not one person here can show why Rudy would hurt the pro life cause."
I'm sorry, but that is a bit much. The GOP had 9 consecutive nominations to the Supreme Court before Bill Clinton and we had exactly 3 pro-life justices. Given this track record among pro-life Republicans, I think it is reasonable to be vary wary. Remember, George W. tried to give us Miers -- who had publically spoken in support of abortion within the last 10 years. Only after the social conservatives walked out, did we get what we wanted.
If Rudy wins, it'll be time to walk out again.
Remember, if Rudy wins the nomination, than he wins the delegates to the convention. Odds are good those delegates would pull the pro-life plank from the party platform.
The socially liberal wing of the party has tried to do this at each convention since 1984.
Hearing economic conservatives say support the nominee "no matter what" is plain insanity.
Would an economic conservative be ok with a socially conservative socialist winning the GOP nomination in 2008?
If that happened some social conservative might run around mindlessly saying we just need to beat Hillary. So why don't all the libertarians just be good team players and vote for the socialist? That would be crazy.
If the candidate is at philosophical war with more than half the coalition, don't expect that half to close ranks.
The "Stop Hillary at all cost" view is the wrong prism to be looking through. Sometimes it makes sense to keep your powder dry. This may be the only way to win the war. I assure you, the 2008 battle will not determine the war.
I would prefer to discipline the GOP for doing the wrong thing (nominating a social liberal) and ensure that this never happens again. Rather than elect a social liberal Republican, cause social conservatives to become marginalized, and send the GOP into the wilderness for 40 years.
The GOP is not an end in and of itself. It is a useful tool. When it stops being useful. You throw it away.
GOP Schism
Would economic conservatives be ok with a socially conservative socialist as the GOP nominee?
Sean Hannity will show them the truth about the pretense that Cuba has better medicine than we do. Behind the scenes camera shots will put the lie to Michael Moore's ridiculous notion and his sicko (pun intended) movie.
Most Middle-eastern countries use waterboarding as the relaxation period between serious interrogation sessions.
Has Israel ever used waterboarding? Thats going to be my benchmark.
Wow, 14 minutes and 21 seconds of lifespan. I ban an average of two users in a year. Congratulations! You're number one!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Last couple of days, there've been 5-to-7 blogs hit the Recommended list, taking one side or the other on the 'we'll sit on our hands if Rudy wins the nomination' question. Some pretty nasty and personal rhetoric flying around. Thank you, I participated in some of that myself.
Ben, I noticed that you recommended the one that started the whole flap, by Red Sox Republican. So did a number of the editors. And I don't mean to be snippy here, but why did you endorse that blog, whose essence was it's non-negotiable -- I will not vote for Rudy in the general election, while here, you continue your EXECELLENT 'Keep It Together' series?
I'm missing the part where these are compatible positions. Unless your 'recommend' was less of an endorsement than it was a 'hey, this inflammatory blog will sure get the conversation going'.
So, as it relates to the War -- while we are double-checking our equipment, getting the ankles taped, checking snaps, straps, cleats, face masks, and so on, in preparation to putting that 4th-quarter whuppin' on Hillary -- I see it as a real problem that alot of people here are saying that they are not going to engage in the battle, if Rudy is the quarterback -- that in essense, a Rudy presidency is no better than a Hillary one.
So, what is your vision for 'Keep it Together' that includes sitting on your hands if Rudy wins the nomination? What am I missing?
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the
enemyDemocrats?