Yesterday – among many other times – I wrote about the need for conservatives to stand up for their beliefs (and, more importantly, stick with them; work for them; get involved, even tangentially, in the political process). This, I firmly believe; now – caucus time – is the time to get out to your precinct cauci and speak up for conservatism. Spit fire. Exude brimstone. Get real conservative candidates, planks and ideals endorsed. If you’re elected as a delegate or alternate, go to the convention and do more of the same. And so on and so forth, up the party food chain, to the State convention.
Everyone with me so far?
Still, that’s kinda the easy part; although conservatives and Republicans tend not to be “go hang out and do political things” people the way Tics are (we tend to have jobs and families and stuff), a lot of us came to conservatism for deeply idealistic reasons.
And let’s be honest; it’s a hard time to be an idealistic conservative. MOBster and True North contrib Kevin Ecker – so conservative he actually laughs at the “Daisy Ad” – writes:
Starting in 2003, many conservatives were becoming extremely disgusted with the Republican party. We had the Presidency and we had Congress, yet none of the conservative agenda was being accomplished. Instead we had the same inept leadership and massive spending. While conservatives did bite their tongue in 2004, they decided to express their disgust in 2006. Many didn’t show up, others made protest votes, the result being horrible losses across the spectrum for the GOP.
That’s a tough one for me.
Back in 1994, in the wake of the ’94 Crime Bill and the GOP’s cave-in, I “expressed my disgust” for the GOP by leaving the party. I sat out the “contract for America”, and joined the big-L Libertarians. Standing for absolute principle was important to me, then.
As it is now, actually.
I left the Libertarians in 1998 because relentless purism never won an election – not even for Ronald Reagan – and never changed anyone’s history (at least not in a good way). I figured the best way to enact the liberarian-conservatism I believed in was to engage in the long, patient slog within the GOP. And in the long term, I still believe that.
So I have two questions for conservatives who – like me – are underwhelmed with the remaining choices in this race.
Question 1: Remember 2002? I, like many conservatives, was underwhelmed with Tim Pawlenty’s record in the legislature. Not as a legislator, of course – he was a consummate legislative technician. But Pawlenty was nothing if not pragmatic; he was no idealistic conservative. It took the challenge from conservative Brian Sullivan to drive Pawlenty to the right to win the ’02 nomination. Although he’s bowed to some pressure in the current term, to the chagrin of many Minnesota conservatives, the fact is that he answered the pressure from the right during the nominating process – the process that starts again a week from next Tuesday – and governed as the most conservative governor Minnesota’s had in a long, long time. So – what if all of the conservatives who were disgusted with Pawlenty had stayed home in 2002? Or 2006? What would Minnesota look like today with Governor Roger Moe? Governor Mike Hatch?
Question #2: Have you checked the EKGs in the Supreme Court lately?: In the next four years, between one and three seats on the Supreme Court will open up. Now – Ronald Reagan said that if you agree with someone on 80% of the issues, you oughtta forgive ’em the other 20%. It’s safe to stay that Rudy, JMac and the Huck are stretching to get anywhere close to 80% for me (and while Mitt is probably a safe 80% on the Berg scale, I just don’t see him winning. Not at all). But when it comes to filling three seats on the SCOTUS – in terms that will decide key interpretations of abortion law and the Second Amendment, to say nothing of the scads of issues the new justices will decide during their lifetime careers – I have to ask you: is 70% better than 20%?
Is 50% better than 20%? (Are Hillary and Obama even 20%?)
There is a time and place to stand on rigid principle to save the Republican Party. That time and place is now, and extends through the national convention. It’s a time when we – real conservatives – need to get out and fight like hell to save this party from the go-along, get-along crowd; the crowd that wants a moderate in the Third District; the crowd that concedes Minneapolis and Saint Paul to the Tics without a real fight; the crowd that gave us Kennedy-level spending and Strib-approved candidates.
But remember – the caucuses, the BPOU conventions and District and State and National conventions are where we act for the good of the party; where we save the GOP, and make it a real conservative party. When the national convention ends next September 4 in Saint Paul, there’s another priority, and it’s much bigger.
We have a nation to save.
Eight years ago, I supported Steve Forbes. I supported him for reasons that, in retrospect, were absolutely right; I fought hard against the George W Bush machine at my caucuses and in my conventions, because I believed that Forbes would be a hard-core spending hawk. In those pre-war days, that was the most important issue – and I was right. Forbes would have been a better economic president than Bush. My opinion of Bush didn’t change until 9/11 – and when it comes to spending, has yet to change.
But come election time, disappointed as I was, I reasoned; who’s going to be better for this nation? A deeply-imperfect, barely-conservative Republican? Or a gabbling, lisping, flip-flopping, ingratiating, holier-than-thou wonk like Algore? George W. Bush was maybe a 60% candidate for me; Algore, perhaps 10%.
So however the convention turns out – and we still have a chance to save things – ask yourself this third, final question.
It is November. It’s election time. And in one hand, a Jihadi holds the Constitution, waving it menacingly over a bunsen burner. In the other hand, he holds an AK47 aimed at your child’s head. Who do you think is going to do the right thing – not for your party (the party stuff is over, now), but for the United States of America and its future? For your child and the Constitution?
Rudy (65%)? Mitt (a soft 80%)? JMac (70%)? The Hucker (Maybe 60%, and it’s the wrong 60%)?
Or Hillary (10%), Obie (5%) or Silkypony (2%, divided between “two Americas”)?
Come out on Tuesday. Fight for perfect.
But remember that perfect isn’t just the enemy of good enough. This year, it might just be the enemy of “survivable”.
It must get hard balancing on that centrisity while leaning off to the left. Twist and spin. Makes me wonder what the meaning of “Is” is.
Flash is sensible and centristy. It’s just that you wingnuts keep moving so far to the right-wing fringe, Darth Vader looks like a libral to you.
Am I reading the above right? Is someone or some people saying the fake docs may not be proven to be fakes?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615&only
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only
Mitch, I think you said you approve any posts with links….but this shows intentional fraud to change a Presidential election.
Agree with ya AC, Flash is FAR from a liberal, but then again, to right-wing nutjobs, anything that doesn’t agree with the dogma, is a heretic and must be exterminated.
Kermit, it sometimes makes me wonder what the meaning of the word ‘regime change’ is, or for that matter, ‘torture’. I find those words to be just a wee bit more important than whether a President a decade ago disembled about an affair. Bill Clinton lied, move on, Bush lied, according to a recently published report by a non-profit and non-partisan journalistic watchdog group, in a ‘systematic’ and ‘purposefully distorted’ way intended to mislead us into war. Live by your own sword, or die by it.
Pingback: Bogus Gold
Pingback: EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » What’s So Funny?
ac barfed:
“Flash is sensible and centristy. It’s just that you wingnuts keep moving so far to the right-wing fringe, Darth Vader looks like a libral to you.”
Well…..Darth Vader did believe in abortion well into the 245th trimester and you can’t tell me those stormtroopers weren’t unionized.
Bush lied, according to a recently published report by a non-profit and non-partisan journalistic watchdog group, in a ’systematic’ and ‘purposefully distorted’ way intended to mislead us into war.
What’s the name of this group, Peev? What’s its stated purpose? Who pays its bills & why? Is it a non-profit funded by its own endowment or are the purse strings controlled by others? What are the stated goals of the funding parties, that is, why are they giving this group dollars? Who makes of the boards of these funding entities? How much money do the board members contribute to Democrat vs. Republican politicians? How politically balanced are the people who make the decision what to spend their precious resources investigating? Are they D’s or R’s? Greenies or outright marxist?
Since you agreed with their conclusion, I bet none of these questions ever occurred to you.
OK, Terry – what percent IS JMac?
I don’t know how you can assign percentages to something that is more qualitative than quantifiable, but in terms of the substance (as opposed to merely the rhetoric) of his votes on fiscal discipline and the hawkishness of his foreign policy, he’s objectively to the right of Ronald Reagan.
Since you agreed with their conclusion, I bet none of these questions ever occurred to you.
I’ll give you a hint, Peev:
George Soros is involved. Prominently.
Terry asked: “What’s the name of this group, Peev? What’s its stated purpose? Who pays its bills & why? Is it a non-profit funded by its own endowment or are the purse strings controlled by others? What are the stated goals of the funding parties, that is, why are they giving this group dollars? Who makes of the boards of these funding entities? How much money do the board members contribute to Democrat vs. Republican politicians? How politically balanced are the people who make the decision what to spend their precious resources investigating? Are they D’s or R’s? Greenies or outright marxist?”
Paulie Wingnuts answered: “George Soros is involved. Prominently.”
All excellent reasons for wingnuts to give themselves permission to ignore transparent, verifiable facts.
For some reason, Fox and the Heritage Foundation aren’t asking how many lies the administration told, how many Iraqis were killed or how thoroughly we’ve played into Iran’s hands by handing the country over to their Shiite pals at the cost of American blood. Wonder why that is.
All somebody would have to do is dig up Albert Einstein’s Democratic registration for you to become convinced that relativity is a commie plot. You wingnuts want authority, not reality. 2008 will be about leaving you behind to stew in your vast ignorance.
how thoroughly we’ve played into Iran’s hands by handing the country over to their Shiite pals
Last tikme I checked (yesterday) the Sunni majority was cooperating with us and the Sadr army was pretty much disbanded. You should try writing fiction. Oh wait, you are.
Um, “Sunni majority?” You need to check your facts, Kerm. Oh wait, you don’t have any.
Peev:
“…then again, to right-wing nutjobs, anything that doesn’t agree with the dogma, is a heretic and must be exterminated.”
Yeah… like Lieberman.
“in terms of the substance (as opposed to merely the rhetoric) of his (McCain) votes on fiscal discipline and the hawkishness of his foreign policy, he’s objectively to the right of Ronald Reagan.”
Thorley Gets it! But the GOP doesn’t want anyone to know that yet. I think TW let the cat out of the bag to early. He must not have known that information was still under embargo.
Kurt
Just to annoy Peev:
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=231
I meant majority of Sunnis. Cut me some slack, it was 6:30 AM. Your nit picking doesn’t change those facts, neither does your denying them.
“Nit-picking.” Angryclown gets up at five, but still knows the Shia are the majority and are biding their time till we get out of Dodge – one year from now or twenty. Unless you’ve got a theory why an unoccupied majority wouldn’t want to run their own country.
All excellent reasons for wingnuts to give themselves permission to ignore transparent, verifiable facts.
And how does this relate to Peev’s bizarre assertion that Soros’ ‘study’ is valid because it is non-partisan, and non-profit?
A majority of Dem senators and a significant number of dem congressmen voted for the Iraq War. They have access to far more intelligence info then Soros’ minions. If Peev & Soros are right, they are political opportunists, morons or both.
Let me put this in simple terms for you democratic party supporters:
If Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, as virtually everyone in the world thought in 2002 & early 2003, where would we be now with Iraq?
Other than that the total casualties in the war, Iraq and coalition, would be higher, we would be exactly where we are now. Same groups broken into the same allegiances, same struggle for power between Sunni & Shia, AQ & Iran. You guys on the left would still be demanding we withdraw immediately, still claim that Bush was incompetent, and no matter how much WMD were found and destroyed, would still be claiming that it wasn’t worth it. And Soros’ Media Matters would still be compiling lists of out of context remarks Bush & co made about the war. Because for the Left it has never been about Iraq or WMD. It’s been about Bush and how much you loathe him.
Terry pondered: “If Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, as virtually everyone in the world thought in 2002 & early 2003, where would we be now with Iraq?”
Gee, Terry, hard to tell how things might have proceeded in a pretend world. In the real world, Iraq was a mistaken war, incompetently prosecuted.
You & Peev share the quality of missing the point. When is Schumer’s term up? 2010? Will you make a real world decision to vote for that bastard after he supported Bush’s Iraq War, AC? You might be able to vote for Clinton later this year. If you can get over the fact that she voted for Bush’s war.
If we’re talking about punishment, seems to me the liars are more deserving of it than the lied to. And Angryclown will vote for candidates the most likely to fix things going forward. The Repubics aren’t looking good on either measure, Dr. No.
“Hillary was lied to… Hillary! of all people!!! Bush should pay dearly for lying to my woman!”
😆
What a complete girl you are, AC.
Clinton knew nearly as much about Iraq’s WMD’s as Bush did, via her husband. Yet she fell for his ‘lies’ as eagerly as any Freshman GOP congressman. Troubling, isn’t it, AC?
Can’t wait ’til she’s in the White House and puts that razor-sharp mind to work solving the country’s problems!
What a pedigree! Junior senator holding a safe democrat seat — no primary challenge worth mentioning — and before that partner in a law firm in a podunk state.
You & Peev share the quality of missing the point.
Well, in AC’s defense, he doesn’t “miss” it so much as “zigzag to avoid it with all the dexterity of Alberto Tomba on the slalom course” for frequently-comedic effect.
Gee, Terry, hard to tell how things might have proceeded in a pretend world.
Halabja was pretend?
From a Russert interview
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
MR. RUSSERT: “ A grave threat to America,” do you still believe that?
SEN. EDWARDS: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?
SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. …
People on the left might wonder what Saddam’s plans were for the incredible amount of conventional arms he had amassed before and during a sanctions regime so crippling it managed to make Ba’ath party cronies and UN functionaries millionaires.
That happened during Clinton’s term, doesn’t help to reinforce BDS, so it must never be mentioned.
Funny how you think that tagging any Democrat with any fault on any issue somehow undercuts Angryclown’s points that Bush was foolish to invade Iraq and that he screwed up the occupation. Angryclown pities you silly Bush dead-enders. In 20 years most of you will lie and say you voted for Al Gore, just to avoid the ridicule.
seems to me the liars are more deserving of it than the lied to.
I’m just trying to clear up who lied and who was lied to. Are we past that now?
AC in Pesci-mode:
“Okay, okay, okay, okay… so my guys are either stupid, lying, or incompetant just as much as I think your guy is. But that doesn’t change the fact that… that… that… Look, I’m still funny! Laugh at me. Laugh at me!!!”
We are, AC. We are.
“Bush was foolish to invade Iraq”
Look, clown, are you purposely being stupid? You know as well as I do that Congress effectively declared war on Iraq and the democratic controlled congress continues to fund the war. Bush doesn’t have the authority to declare war. Quit trying to weasel out of your ‘Bush lied us into war’ BDS bullshit. You and your party of choice don’t give a dam about winning the Iraq war, all you care about is playing its outcome into partisan advantage. The dems no longer view their success and the success of the United States’ endeavours as being the same. God have pity on your poor, whithered souls.
tagging any Democrat with any fault on any issue somehow undercuts Angryclown’s points that Bush was foolish to invade Iraq
…when a look back at history in a few years alone will be enough to do that.
“The buck stops there,” eh Terry? Your mealy-mouthed excuses make me puke.
Look, clown, are you purposely being stupid?
If you said the sky was blue….
Kermit hypothesized: “If you said the sky was blue….”
Angryclown would be startled, but would quickly agree and congratulate you on a rare, lucid moment. Then he’d throw some more chicken heads into your cage as you resume babbling incoherently.
And the fact that he would have ready access to chicken heads is somehow not surprising.
Terry, you’ve got to lay off the Maui Gold man, its messing with your brain.
“Quit trying to weasel out of your ‘Bush lied us into war’ BDS bullshit.”
Were politicians who voted for the authorization to use force complicit? Without a doubt.
But answer me this:
So who was drumming the beat to war? Was it the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch? Who were the ones making the appearances in the sunday morning political shows? Who were the one promising a quick and cheap war?
There are certainly those addled with BDS, but those that continue to be apologists for Bush are even worse.
Worse? Not really… the Clinton admin also supported regime change, and we had been letting Saddam off light for about ten to twelve years.
Fulcrum-
I think there’s plenty of Maui Gold going around in Minnesota.
Bush’s team did what they thought was necessary given that Saddam had defied a decade worth of UN resolutions designed to make it a law-abiding country. The Legislative branch deliberated and made its decision. We do have separation of powers in this country, you know. War making powers lie with the congress, sayeth the constitution. If any member of congress had doubts they were given the power to vote on the measure. Some voted no. The majority — and not a slim majority — voted ‘aye’. Bush has stuck with the decision he made in 2003. Congress — including many influential democrats — are whining that they want a do-over. If they made a mistake in October 2002 about something this important, how dare they suggest that this time, without doubt, they have it right and we really need to trust them this time? They no more have hindsight now then they did 5.5 years ago.
Who were the ones making the appearances in the sunday morning political shows?
Pro and anti-war people
Who were the one promising a quick and cheap war?
Who indeed? Chapter and verse, please.
Recall that just before the war began we believed Saddam had bunkers full of mustard gas, at least, and possibly sarin and anthrax as well. It’s ridiculous to think that anyone would believe both that Saddam had WMD and that the war would be easy. Quick is another matter. The primary mission was deposing Saddam and securing his WMD. That took less than a month.
Terry “Mission Accomplished”: “The primary mission was deposing Saddam and securing his WMD. That took less than a month.”
If you take the one-month perspective, Hitler’s invasion of Poland worked out just peachy for him. In the big picture, though, not so much.
Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question. I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11th cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, another event in the United States that was like September 11th, and which cost thousands of lives, but one that involved a — for example, a biological weapon, would be — have a cost in human life, as well as in billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be vastly greater.
or this one:
Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. “To assume we’re going to pay for it all is just wrong,” he said.
or this one:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 30, 2003 — The administration’s top budget official (Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget) estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.
or this one:
The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years�We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]
We can’t read any of that without knowing whether you’ve ever taken money from George Soros, Fulcrum. Please provide a notarized affidavit and copies of your tax returns for the past 10 years. Otherwise we’ll have to assume it’s all worthless, Soros-funded lefty propaganda.
Why those Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz fellows got it all wrong! It’s a wonder how they even keep their jobs in this administration…oh, wait a second.
And where is the “quick” here? I can’t find the “quick” in these quotes.
Pingback: EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » This Daisy Ad Is Even Funnier