What The Hell Is Wrong With The MNGOP – Part II
By Mitch Berg
One of the most frustrating things about being in the Minnesota GOP is that the factionalism gets downright awful at times.
It’s unavoidable, of course; the GOP is the big tent party in this state, for better or worse.
But Reagan once said that to succeed as a party, we – the good guys who share a big tent, and disagree about a few things here and there – need to focus on the things we agree on -the 80 or so percent of conservative/Republican belief that most of us have in common.
Unfortunately, Minnesota Republicans tend to beat each other to death over the other 20%.
I’m not talking about the Override Six – because hammering out differences in opinion is for the run-up to elections and sessions. Once your party’s governor has stepped out onto the high wire is no time to untie one of the wire anchors. Screw the Override Six; two of them retired from politics, two got fumigated at the polls, and here’s hoping the other two get religion.
I am talking about how we hammer out consensus – almost a dirty word, in some GOP circles – among each other and, more importantly, how we proceed forward against the bad guys. And it’s something we need to wrangle out, because the next time I hear a “conservative” say he’ll never vote for Tim Pawlenty (as good as giving a vote to Mike Hatch or whomever) because he “isn’t a conservative” and ignoring the fact that he has done more to limit government growth and hold the line on taxes than any governor in recent history, I might not be responsible for my actions.
We know the things that separate us: some of us are spending moderates, others are tax hawks; for some gay marriage and abortion are the biggest issues, and for others they get nodding points; there are ideological purists and political pragmatists. We are a “big tent”, all right – and that’s not a good thing. The Democrats are a small tent in that you can be of any race, orientation or class, as long as you believe in redistribution and big government. We have to satisfy a lot of different demands – or resign ourselves to being like the Independence or Libertarian Parties.
What we need to do is find the things we agree on. And unite behind those things.
So what are those things?
A long time ago, True North posted our “manifesto“; we focus on:
- Liberty: lower taxes, less (and more sensible) regulation, and a focus on freedom, whether economic, intellectual or political.
- Prosperity: the promotion of the freedom of the market to bring the most opportunity to the most people, and the promotion of merit that drives this prosperity.
- Security: the defense of this nation from enemies abroad, the protection of its citizens from crime and criminals at home, and the security of our borders.
- Culture: The recognition that America is a melting pot that welcomes newcomers who come with a desire to join in our novel experiment, enjoy freedom, wealth and a brotherhood of common principle, rather than view it as a candy store to be plundered.
- Limited Government: A government that is focusing on whether you’re smoking or eating Big Macs is a government that has too much time, money and power on its hands.
- Family: the belief that government needs to uphold, rather than undercut, the basic building block of all healthy societies, the family.
Of course, True North is conservative, rather than Republican – so those are the things that we agree on.
So how about the party at large? Especially you pragmatists, all you moderates, and those of you who are more motivated by party than ideology? What do you agree on, to the point where you’d downplay your differences over other points for purposes of presenting a unified party with a positive message the voters?
What, in biblical terms, would it take to make the hawk lie down with the RINO?
No, I don’t expect this thread to drive any discussion in the GOP. But it’s something the party needs to think about. Short, positive messages sell – and Reagan showed that that message can be more robust than “yes we can” and still spark the imagination.
Which is what we need to do next year.
Note: Thread is restricted to Republicans – or at least to parties interested in this discussion Snarks will be expunged sooner than later.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I agree but your prime example is the one exception I cannot accept. Pawlenty has done some things right, but has also made several significant unforced errors like the Twins and smoking, all going the DFL direction. He puts out ideas, but doesn’t follow through, like Q-comp that winds up being yet another sop to Education Minnesota. He would rather pass and take credit for “reform in name only” than let the DFL take the blame when it fails.
If the MN GOP is going to rebound, we have to do better in 2010.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
“the GOP is the big tent party in this state”
Sorry, i couldn’t make it past this howler. Maybe I’ll try again later!
January 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Twins? Yes, a mistake.
Smoking? A mistake, and an irritating one, but not the end of the world.
However, Q-comp is not a sop to the teachers unions; they HATE the idea. To EdMN, all teachers are equally meritorious, and only get moreso the longer they “serve”. Merit pay scares the piddle out of them.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Maybe I’ll try again later!
What? Will the DFL’s talking points change later?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:05 am
What are these DFL talking point things and where can I find them. Do they inlude anti smoking ban, pro WoT, Pro 2nd amendment, anti bailout, etc. Cause that would be interesting. Like I said, I have read this screed yet cause i couldn’t get past the opening line howler. And if you can;t begin to see your party for what it truly ihas become, you can’t begin to change it back to a winner.
THE GOP is a matchbox party, they don’t even have a tent, let along a big one, cause if they did I would be a member, but they don’t want me, I’m not pure. The wishy washy Left at least is open to dissension from within, and will therefore compromise since their goal is true big tent. You can’t claim big tent, and then chastise or literally boot people out if they aren’t towing the line.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:07 am
The same place my “Scaifenet” checks come from.
By the way, I did say I wanted to restrict this to discussion among Republicans. I don’t want to Peev your comments, so I’ll ask you to move the “who is regurgitating talking points” discussion to another thread, or to your blog.
Thanks.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:10 am
they don’t want me, I’m not pure.
Re-read my post (or read it for the first time, whichever applies).
It’s a call to get past “purity”, or at least focus it for good, and make room for other points of view, behind the things “we” agree on.
Which you’d have caught, if you weren’t reading things filtered through your talking points.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“What we need to do is find the things we agree on. And unite behind those things. So what are those things?”
Ok, the screed got much better, but I still don’t think the GOP has ever come close to being a big tent accept during the compassionate conservatism era which turned out to be nothing more than electoral spin. The reason you struggle now is the electorate doesn’t have much trust left in what your party says anymore, since what they do after the election isn’t consistent with those words.
I say, for the perspective of someone who, whether you want to accept it or not, is ideologically to the Right, but votes Democratic, is that you need to do a better job of ACCEPTING those that differ and not ignoring why they differ. The treatment of the overide six IS the issue here, and you conveniently brush it under the table as an anomaly. That bill was necessary and the right thing to do. And for that, your party doesn’t care that I side with you on over 50% of the other issues.
I could side with you on 90% of the issues but since I don’t believe the government should be in the business of legislating faith, but it gay marriage or abortion, the Swiftees of the world will run me right out the door screaming MURDERING ASSNOZZLE. THERE is your problem . . . fix it if you want to win again!
Flash
January 28th, 2009 at 10:17 am
The thing with Pawlenty is that he does pass the 80% test. He’s a governor in a purple state with a DFL dominated legislature. If he dug in his heels on every conservative principle he would be the former governor.
The MNGOP certainly has some strong personalities that clash because they are more worried about their careers than what is good for the party. But the biggest problem I see is the issue of how much compromise is best. Don’t compromise your conservative principles at all and you’ll never get elected. Compromise too much and you are the override 6 trying not to let the door hit you on your way out of the party.
Same thing goes in DC. If you are a Congressional Republican, do you vote against the porkfest stimuless in keeping with your conservative principles? Or do you compromise and try to mitigate the damage that will be done?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:27 am
“”Don’t compromise your conservative principles at all and you’ll never get elected. “”
“”Or do you compromise and try to mitigate the damage that will be done? “”
Thul sees the light
January 28th, 2009 at 10:28 am
towing the line.
Flash, it’s toeing the line. You may sense a vacuum now that Peev has been jettisoned, but you’d do well not to emulate his spelling.
It’s early, but if current trends continue I think one winning message would be to talk about the nanny-state tendencies that liberalism brings to the table. From the post:
Limited Government: A government that is focusing on whether you’re smoking or eating Big Macs is a government that has too much time, money and power on its hands.
There’s all that, plus the Fairness Doctrine, card check, CAFE standards and potentially the Orwellian Freedom of Choice Act. The impulse on all these is the same: the bien pensants know what is best and will use the power of the state to ensure that the rest of us straighten up and fly right. That impulse will get a full airing this year and it will spur a backlash and not just from the benighted wingnuts like me who visit your blog. If the various factions within the Republican Party can at least agree not to intrude so much on people’s lives, then stick with it, people will respond.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Flash, the GOP is more tolerant of divergent opinions than the DFL is. I’ve caucused with both, and while I doubt that I’ve changed many (well, any) minds in my GOP caucus on issues where I’m in the minority, I’ve been heard out with courtesy and respect when I’ve argued that being pro-SSM is being pro-family. That’s not at all true on the issues where I’ve disagreed with the consensus when caucusing DFL.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I’ve gotta agree with Joel here Flash. I was involved in the MNGOP for 6 years (until I moved last summer) and they are far more tolerant to diverse opinions than the DFL (whom my husband caucused with). Take a look at the MN Legislature. Mary Ellen Otremba was threatened with loss of her committee chairmanship (before the vote took place) if she DARED to disagree with her party leadership on the Transportation Bill. The Over-Ride 6 were not threatened prior to their votes – they were privately chastised by the party and then after that they let the VOTERS decide. Those districts that felt their member of the 6 didn’t represent them voted their conscience (as the legislators said they did).
LL
January 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
“”the GOP is more tolerant of divergent opinions than the DFL””
Your mileage may vary.
I haven’t blogged with a sitting Democratic President, as most of you have not either. But what I have seen already, is that I am still being critical of the current Admin, while most of you have shifted from virtual unconditional support to a complete attack on everything that comes out of his mouth. Not very Big Tent of you.
If you truly want to crack the dam, you need to start identifying those issues that you agree with the Left on, and believe me, there is much common ground, you just instinctively start with a premise that if a Lefty believes it it must be wrong. But if you can find that fissure, the damn will break, and you’ll have a large pool of new recruits to draw from.
But you have people have Rush as the voice of your party, which will make it very difficult for those types of folks to want to identify with such hatred. You may need to start cleaning up from within.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:32 am
such hatred
Really?
“Hatred?”
Please describe the “hatred” Rush puts out?
I mean, in terms of specifics.
Because that’s another talking point. Actually a shrieking point.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:40 am
‘mitch’, there is a good dialogue here, open up another thread and I’ll be glad to share his vile hatred for anything that doesn’t fit his myopic world. Yes, I just told the blog owner to stay on topic *laughing*
January 28th, 2009 at 11:40 am
If someone disagreed with ‘mitch’ in the woods, would it still be a talking point?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:44 am
““Hatred?”
Please describe the “hatred” Rush puts out?”
Mitch thinks Ann Coulter pokes “good-natured fun” at liberals. Goebbels “kids because he loves.”
January 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Flash, the GOP is more tolerant of divergent opinions than the DFL is. I’ve caucused with both, and while I doubt that I’ve changed many (well, any) minds in my GOP caucus on issues where I’m in the minority, I’ve been heard out with courtesy and respect when I’ve argued that being pro-SSM is being pro-family. That’s not at all true on the issues where I’ve disagreed with the consensus when caucusing DFL.
I can’t speak from first hand experience what a DFL caucus is like but I’ve been both a chair and vice chair at the precinct level for the GOP and I make it a point to give as many people as possible a chance to have their say and usually give a little bit more time to the those who have a minority opinion on an issue. I’ve always thought it takes a lot for volunteers to give up all their all too finite free time to show up for a caucus on a Tuesday evening or give up their Saturday to go over rules and resolutions and meet the candidates and I want them to feel as welcome as possible and just as important, to go back home and tell their friends, family members, neighbors and co-workers that they were treated well and with respect.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Nope, Coulter verges on nuts at times. Während Göbbels – nah, das wäre quatsch…
Flash – you didn’t answer my question. What/where is the “hatred?”
January 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I want them to feel as welcome as possible and just as important, to go back home and tell their friends, family members, neighbors and co-workers that they were treated well and with respect.
My precinct was a three-way battle between Paul, Mac and Mitt. As a precinct chair, I gave the onslaught of Paulbots plenty of time to state their cases.
Show me any time a Ron Paul-type insurgency has actually made a difference in the DFL, Flash.
AFTER you show me an example of “hatred” from Rush, of course…
January 28th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
This conversation about “hate” radio personalities seems to be missing a name — Alan Stuart Franken.
At least Rush pays his own way. He has not physically assaulted people. And he isn’t foolish enough to think that, as an elected official, he can represent the sheep as well as the shearers.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
OK, I wanted to keep this grtet discussion on track but since you asked, a second time, here is a list I put together in just 5 minutes,
“”Enraging liberals is simply one of the more enjoyable side effects of my wisdom. ‘”
“”Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream. “”
“”The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit. “”
“The phony soldiers.”
On Michael J Fox:
“””He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act””
“””And don’t forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There’s a racial component here, too.”” (Sherrod Brown, D-OH, is white)
January 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Thorley, that’s the attitude I saw, too — at my GOP caucus. (To be fair, I have some street cred with some folks in my own precinct because of the gun stuff, but there were the Paul kids, too, and while they didn’t get a lot of votes, and faced a couple of tough questions, they were treated that way, too.)
On the other hand, when I attend the DFL caucuses, it feels like a stereotype of fundamentalist revival meeting; those who deviate from the scripture are treated like the heretics that they — well, we — are, no matter how devout we appear to be on some issues.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Flash: Limbaugh, at some level, is just playing Triumph the Insult dog, just for much better pay. And because, like Olby on the far left, he likes the applause. About the only time he’s gone over the line was that horrible bit on Chelsea Clinton that I won’t repeat — and it’s worth noting that he has, quite properly, left the Obama kids alone. (Again: as he should.) Most of it is not political commentary, anymore than Franken’s ravings are — it’s just infotainment; Limbaugh just does a geek act that has a larger audience, and does it better.
As to the Michael Fox thing, Limbaugh said something that was horribly offensive, and the only excuse I can proffer on his behalf is that it was more or less true. Fox did deliberately stop taking his medication before his testimony, so he would be twitching and let the audience see how shocking Parkinson’s looks.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“Republicans are shameless d**ks. No, that’s not fair. Republican politicians are shameless d**ks.”
“I’m Al Franken. I hate you, and you hate me.” (to Karl Rove)
“When I was first asked to speak at Hartford State Technical College, I jumped at the opportunity. Because, you see, I thought I had been asked to speak at Harvard, which would have been quite an honor. But instead, I am here with you, the nation’s future air conditioner repairmen.”
“Nobody likes getting an abortion. Except, perhaps, rape victims.”
“We are flaming swords of justice. Bush is going down, he is going down, he is going down. And we’re going to help him.”
“Hitler would have killed in talk radio. He was edgy, too.” (Re Rush Limbaugh)
“As I always say, if you cut out every passage in the New Testament where Jesus talks about helping the poor, or helping the least among us – if you cut out each one of those passages, you’d have the perfect box to smuggle Rush Limbaugh’s drugs.”
-Al Franken
January 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
OK, you set ’em up – I’ll knock ’em down:
“”Enraging liberals is simply one of the more enjoyable side effects of my wisdom. ‘”
That’s not “hate”. I say the same thing. Constantly. Nothing hateful about it.
“”Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream. “”
It’s a snark and an observation. Nothing hateful about it.
“”The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit. “”
Juvenile and un-PC, but nothing hateful about it.
“The phony soldiers.”
Very out of context. He was talking about the people who faked war experiences from whole cloth. MediaMatters pushed the talking point (hah!) that he meant something else. It was a lie.
On Michael J Fox:
“””He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act””
An opinion. Possibly wrong. Nothing hateful about it.
“””And don’t forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There’s a racial component here, too.”” (Sherrod Brown, D-OH, is white)
A mistake. Nothing hateful about it.
I’ll give you credit to the extend that most liberals will change the subject (usually by calling me names) when I ask.
But really – no. Just, no. If that’s your threshold for “hate”, then the world must be a very scary place.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Flash, Mitch asked for examples of hate from Rush. What you gave were mostly examples of media fabricated outrage about things Rush said that they took out of context.
The phony soldiers are the ones like Jessie McBeth, who lied about serving in the military, lied about being in Iraq, and made up stories of war crimes by the US military.
The reason Rush enrages liberals is that they desperately want a left wing version of him, and keep failing in the attempt.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
If I may draw the converstaion back to it’s original vector, Republicans need to convey sincerity to the American people. That the party is more inclusive cannot be disputed. It is still the party of Colin Powell, who supported Afirmative Action AND Obama.
The GOP has active members who are pro choice and members who are pro life. Can the Democrat party make that claim?
January 28th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Here is the difference, Al Franken is as hate filled as Rush Limbaugh, but he reflects, and has actually apologized for some of the things he has said and done. Rush, and most Republicans, haven’t, or simply can’t apologize.
So here y go, ‘mitch; your right, and as always I’m wrong. I’ll now retire and let you all pat each other on the back as you continue to insists that McCain won the election and there is nothing wrong with Rush ‘I LOVE everyone’ Limbaugh’ Your party is pure and perfect, and how do you figure out how to blind side and buffalo enough of the mushy middle again so we can create the peace and prosperity we have enjoyed for the last 8 years.
I tried, I sincerely tried, and out the door I was kicked.
Flash
PS: The Rush is a hater, plain and simple stuff will be in the other thread.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“What you gave were mostly examples of media fabricated outrage”
I gave you direct quotes from Rush, nothing fabricated about it. One persons hate is another persons chuckle with high five
January 28th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Flash, you seem to suffer from the ‘two ruler’ problem. Rush is a hater, you say, beyond doubt. But when you are given examples of your guy engaging in the same type hateful speech you rationalize and excuse.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Flash,
If those are your best “hate” examples, you really need to visit MediaMatters or any other “we hate Rush” group.
They fail to illustrate “hate”, mostly because there wasn’t any, but you don’t even explain your reasoning.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“he reflects, and has actually apologized for some of the things he has said..”
Oh, *snap*.
“you need to start identifying those issues that you agree with the Left on, and believe me, there is much common ground…”
Like what, dickhead? (oops, was that hateful?….sorry.) Name one thing a rational person might find in common with the bag of assholes that calls itself the Democrat party (oops, sorry again). The only thing I want my legislative representatives to find in common with some stinking lefty is the back of their hand finding common ground with the side of their pointy little skulls (I deeply regret that).
Behold the new age of kindness, ala the party of Scrubs (oops…sorry).
January 28th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I’ll say this for you, Flash — you completely hijacked this thread. And here’s a hint for you. The reason you get kicked out the door is that you have no credibility. You always trot out your laundry list of things you claim to agree with us about, but then you come on in the comments thread like Peev on a non-therapeutic dose of lithium. Every time you throw out “Scaifenet” or “Limbaugh is a hater,” it tells us that you are fundamentally unserious. At least the Clown is upfront about his purposes. I have regular lefty commenters on my blog who disagree with me about any number of things, but they don’t pretend to be on my side.
Now, back to the topic. The key to the next two years will be ensuring that people understand what is happening and why, and then presenting an alternative. That is where Limbaugh and the rest of the talkers are helpful. The stimulus package that is coming down the pike right now is a gigantic porkfest. The Republicans went wrong this decade by engaging in pork barrel politics and deserved to be sent packing for it. I suspect that once this bill is passed and the results become known, it won’t augur well for the party in power. In 2009 the Democrats will still be able to get by through blaming EVIL BUSH for everything, but by 2010 they will own the results of their handiwork. Fortunately for the Republicans, 2010 is when the elections get held.
But it won’t be enough to say “hey, we’re not Democrats,” especially since voters will be able to recall a time not that long ago when Republicans, especially of the congressional variety, were acting like Democrats. It’s hard to complain about John Murtha when you have people like Ted Stevens in your caucus. The Republican Party has to stand for limited government and mean it. That’s an alternative that the Party promised voters 15 years ago. It never really happened.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“I’ll say this for you, Flash — you completely hijacked this thread.”
I specifically didn’t hijack this thread and actually told ‘mitch’ I would take the ‘if Rush is a hater prove it’ to another thread. He is the one who insisted. Here, read it again:
“”‘mitch’, there is a good dialogue here, open up another thread and I’ll be glad to share his vile hatred for anything that doesn’t fit his myopic world. Yes, I just told the blog owner to stay on topic *laughing*””
= = =
Flash – you didn’t answer my question. What/where is the “hatred?”
and
AFTER you show me an example of “hatred” from Rush, of course…
– – – –
But, what is clearly on display her, is how truly truly small the matchbox part is. I sincerely wanted to have a healthy dialogue, as I have had in the other chapter if this issue. Why ‘mitch’ decided to get all defensive, is, well, why the GOP is losing frankly.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
One of the amazing thing about people on the left (no centrists) is that the same things they say the GOP was doing thru 2006 that brought them undeserved electoral success (devisiveness, appealing to voters’ worst instincts) are now said to be the reason they lose elections.
In both cases they give the voters too much credit.
Truth is, if the DJIA was still around 13,0000 we’d be talking about President McCain. The Left does itself no favor when it forgets that Obama’s margin of victory was in the single digits.
Course if you depend on the MSM you’d think that Obama’s victory was at least two-to-one.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“he reflects, and has actually apologized for some of the things he has said..”
So Flash, was that before or after his carpetbagger bid to be Senator from Minnesota?
January 28th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
People like Flash are lost to the GOP. They call themselves an “independent” but vote democrat. They call themselves “Libertarians” but in truth they are just liberals.
The GOP’s problem is that they are no longer conservative. They don’t hold conservative values and for those that might they are politically unwilling to fight for them. These people have been putting the party before their principles for a long time. All they care about is being in power and getting re-elected.
I don’t want people like Flash in my party because people like him have no idea what the real relationship between government and man really is. They think government is some benevolent parent that should take care of man and foster his every need. What people like Flash don’t realize is that the relationship between men and government is a moral relationship, and it revolves all around freedom. Practically everything government does reduces freedom and it is the moral obligation of politicians to fight the growth of government to preserve our freedom. The problem with liberals like Flash is that they don’t believe this which is why they will get shown the door every time.
To be a Democrat all you have to do is love government. To be a Republican all you have to do is love freedom.
JS
January 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Snark: (expunge if you will, Mitch; it’s your blog, after all) I really, really wish that wise heads in the GOP would prevail upon Governor Pawlenty to keep his 2006 promise on the carry permit reciprocity thing.
I know that a fair number of GOP solicitations have been sent back — at GOP expense — like this one: http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/qq3/mountainK2/GOPgun.jpg
January 28th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Wait a second, flash…
We’re not Big Tent folks, and the Minnesota GOP is not a Big Tent party, and neither is the Republican party because…
We don’t saddle up to the political views of the current president who is in the party opposite of the party that more closely represents us?!?!?!
Huh???
To whom are you referring? Mitch, Kermit, me, Peev… you’ve got to be a little more specific, flash. I’d love to hear where you’re getting this idea… what’s more, I’d love to hear you defend the folks on your side of the aisle regarding their favorite whipping boy… the one they likened to and even referred to as Hitler.
January 28th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
And lost in all this “Rush hates” b.s. (by the way, it`s still legal to “hate” in this country, isn`t it?) is the fact that he was only discussing the stimulus bill, which he`s against because it`s all pork(says he) and hopes it fails. How terrible. And that says much more about Democrats that would rather demonize Rush than debate the bill.
January 28th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
It is always okay for the left to hate… whenever there’s a Republican in view.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Mitch touched on one problem that both Republicans and conservatives (not alway one and the same-see McCain) is that many of the people we want to reach don’t pay much attention to the sausage being made. So when the the 1-5’s and 5-5’s (see Jerry Pournelle’s politic grid)pitch something like a “saturday night special” law they play to emotions and are better at the heartstring tugging PR, because they know they have to be, then we do and they demand everything. So if we don’t compromise, to be seen as meeting people halfway, we are held to be unfair and uncooperative. So we loose ground, and next year they are back to get more. We are to busy living our lives, not butting into other peoples like the 1-5’s and 5-5’s want to do, to play offense. We have been playing defense, and the mushy middle don’t pay attention long enough to see where we are all loosing ground.
The opposition is like Hamas, they keep pitching the rockets into our homes, but what ever we do to stop them, short of a scorched earth policy, only buys time. If they get set back they lick their wounds and come back in another direction the next time.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Limited Government? Hmmmph, this is the biggest government ever with the biggest deficit ever! This government tries to regulate my death, my health, my bedroom and my religion. It is both very intrusive and very expansive. I would rather a government regulate my Big Mac ( which I want to be safe to eat) than my bedroom.
However, don’t let that facts get in the way of a good fantasy.
Kick out all of the unbelievers!!!!
January 29th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Grace Kelly said:
“I would rather a government regulate my Big Mac ( which I want to be safe to eat)”
Obviously you don’t know what a Big Mac is, or you want a Big Mac to be a salad with no dressing. One thing you should know is that a salad with no dressing is available, and it is called a “salad with no dressing”.
As to the “government is to big, so I would rather it be bigger” argument you make? That’s some pretty stupid stuff, there. I can see that you “don’t let that facts get in the way of a good fantasy”.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Deregulated Republican Big Mac: Two dog food patties, rancid sauce, lettuce, cheezTM, salmonella on a sesame seed bun.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Limited Government? Hmmmph, this is the biggest government ever with the biggest deficit ever!
Until Obama’s administration really takes effect? Sure.
But you ain’t seen nothing yet.
i> This government tries to regulate my death, my health, my bedroom and my religion. It is both very intrusive and very expansive.
OK, Grace, you 9/11 truther you. What did the Bush Administration regulate as far as your bedroom, your health, your religion or your death are concerned?
I know – you don’t actually answer questions – but I figured I’d ask.
I would rather a government regulate my Big Mac ( which I want to be safe to eat) than my bedroom.
I’ll patiently await the word as to how Bush deregulated Big Macs or regulated bedrooms.
However, don’t let that facts get in the way of a good fantasy.
The 9/11 truther is talking about fantasties.
No, Grace, do us a favor; show us the regulations and deregulations.
Kick out all of the unbelievers!!!!
January 29th, 2009 at 7:22 am
That’s some pretty stupid stuff, there.
Grace makes Peev seem pretty on-top-of-it, if you catch my drift.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Amazing Grace said: “my death, my health, my bedroom and my religion”
Lemme annotate that for you, Mitch:
my death (see, e.g., In re: Terri Schiavo)
my health (anti-choice)
my bedroom (anti-gay)
my religion (Christianist policies)