January 1-5, 2009
Jan 01 10:31 Hunting RINOhunters Jan 01 11:50 Let Them Die Jan 02 00:08 Technology & Message Jan 02 09:37 Democrats' Strategy Smacks of University of Alabama Jan 03 10:25 Technology & Messsaging, Part II Jan 04 03:31 Chargers Defeat Colts, Send 'Hottest Team in NFL' Home Jan 04 10:59 Message and Technology, Part III Jan 04 11:45 Popcorn Factor Intensifies Jan 05 13:24 Isn't Irrelevance Fun?
Hunting RINOhunters
Conservatives have tried defining RINOs the past couple of election cycles without much success. While conservatives wouldn't argue that Chuckie Hagel or Linc Chaffee are RINOs, plenty of conservatives would argue about others who've been tagged with that label.
I don't know of any GOP activists who'd say that Tom Emmer, Laura Brod or Mark Buesgens are RINOs. Nonetheless, some hardline conservatives haven't hesitated in calling Mike Beard and Steve Gottwalt RINOs. I find that type of namecalling totally assinine.
This ast session, both men voted against each of the DFL's tax increases, then voted to sustain Gov. Pawlenty's vetoes of those tax increases. Both men have voted for and/or proposed market-based health care reforms. Both men voted against the DFL's original set of irresponsible omnibus spending bills, then voted to sustain Gov. Pawlenty's vetoes of those irresponsible spending bills.
Sue Jeffers is the quintessential portrait of a hardline 'RINOhunter'. This week, she accused Rep. Gottwalt of being a RINO because he voted for the smoking ban. I've told Steve that I didn't agree with him on that vote. I also told Steve that that wouldn't prevent me from enthusiastically supporting his re-election campaign.
Sue Jeffers hasn't bothered letting facts get in the way of her opinions. That's why it's easy for people like Ms. Jeffers to throw around the RINO tag. It's also why it's easy for people like Jason Lewis to call Norm Coleman and Dave Senjem elitists for not supporting a convicted criminal's Senate campaign. What's tragic about Lewis' diatribe is that he chose to ignore the fact that Alison Krueger defeated Mark Olson in the SD-16 primary.
When Lewis ignored the will of the people in SD-16, he became the elitist. When Ms. Jeffers ignored the conservative, market-based policies that Steve Gottwalt advocated and instead focused on a single vote, Ms. Jeffers' credibility disappeared.
It's time that thinking conservatives ignored the hyperbolic rants of hardliners like Ms. Jeffers and Mr. Lewis until they start consistently thinking things through.
Posted Thursday, January 1, 2009 10:31 AM
Comment 1 by Brad S at 01-Jan-09 05:28 PM
Jason Lewis, at some point in the next 4-6 years, is going to have to "put up or shut up." Especially if he's considering going for a Senate run against either Klobuchar or Franken. This means being significantly more willing to support fellow GOPers that would do anything to support a celebrity candidacy like Jason's would be.
Put down the RINO bazookas, folks. You can't afford to do that right now.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 01-Jan-09 08:37 PM
The term "Republican in Name Only" ought to be only of passing interest. In my opinion, anyone willing to call THEMSELVES a Republican deserves all the support that other Republicans can give, especially if they are willing to suffer the outrageous assault the Democrats give any Republican running for office. The only people who are /objectionably/ Republicans in Name Only are those who call themselves conservative first and Republicans second. There is a conservative party, if that's what you want to call yourself. If you want to be a Republican, then quit sniping at the rest of us.
Now, after they take office, we ought to expect them to agree with republican principles and policies (like the rest of the party) more often than not. And we ought to do more than just call them names during campaign season. If you didn't tell them what you wanted all through the session, what did you expect them to do? It's your fault!
Comment 3 by eric z at 01-Jan-09 09:02 PM
Two thoughts - I think that pejorative view has been expressed against Mike Huckabee, and I wonder how that fits the post. Second, the Dems have had to deal with Lieberman and his choices. He votes with them on organizing. It is the same with Oberstar - quite close to "moderate" Republican in ways, but voting with the Dems on organizing. And less a gadfly than Lieberman, clearly.
But Lieberman and Huckabee - any thoughts, Gary?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 01-Jan-09 09:27 PM
Eric, there's a huge difference between Sen. Lieberman & Gov. Huckabee. Sen. Lieberman votes with Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer & Hillary Clinton the vast, vast majority of the time. His lone 'sin' against liberalism was that he was pro-victory in Iraq. He was solidly in the mainstream of the Democratic party on education, global warming, taxes & health care reform.
When he was governor, Huckabee CHEERFULLY raised taxes, supported sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, thought that the underlying principles behind Reaganite conservatism were antiquated & spent like a Washington politician.
The most accurate description of Gov. Huckabee is that he's a pro-life socialist. That's hardly in step with GOP activists.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 05-Jan-09 09:04 PM
You've given several good reasons why Huckabee should not have been the nominee for President. But similar things can and have been said about McCain, and he was the nominee. I didn't vote for Huckabee in the caucuses, but I did vote for McCain in the general. Had Huckabee won the nomination, I would have voted for him. In short, any Republican is better than any Democrat, if only as a "place holder" until we can find a better Republican to put in their stead. As Vince Lombardi said, "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
Comment 6 by Tom at 06-Jan-09 08:46 PM
May I suggest that while I would not call Representative Buesgens a "RINO" (whatever that may mean to whoever is defining the term), what concerns me more is the effectiveness of his representation as I am one of his constituents. For example, for his term 2007-8, he chief authored 14 pieces of legislation and did not have a single hearing on any of the proposed legislation. And as a conservative, I have great philosophical trouble in accepting his efforts to expand gambling in our county -- or for that matter anywhere in the state of Minnesota.
In regard to J. Ewings contribution, I have found that there is a Republican Party that has a platform that all "conservatives" may not be able to support each position (like no expansion to gambling!) yet they should not feel that they cannot compete for the votes of party delegates; nor should the party impede the ability of any interested public service minded person to present himself or herself to a political party seeking to represent the constituency affected.
Comment 7 by Lady Logician at 07-Jan-09 12:19 PM
"May I suggest that while I would not call Representative Buesgens a "RINO" ..."
You say you are not going to call him a RINO and yet you bring him into a discussion on "RINO"s...To put Mark Buesgens (of all people) in the same paragraph as RINO is laughable in and of itself. I don't think that there is ANYONE in this state on either side of the aisle who would call Mark a RINO - except you Tom.
To get this back to the discussion at hand, there is a time and a place for "RINO hunting" and that is NOW. Until we get endorsements in hand we are fine to have these discussion, but after endorsements we have to start thinking strategically if we are EVER going to take the House back.
LL
Let Them Die
When I read the opening of this article , my first reaction was "Let them die." Here's what I'm referring to:
Connecticut lawmaker Frank Nicastro sees saving the local newspaper as his duty. But others think he and his colleagues are setting a worrisome precedent for government involvement in the U.S. press.I remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth during Reagan's time. People bemoaned the fact that IBM, Sears and Montgomery Ward were going through difficult times, relatively speaking. I say relatively because IBM still held a market share north of 75 percent.
Nicastro represents Connecticut's 79th assembly district, which includes Bristol, a city of about 61,000 people outside Hartford, the state capital. Its paper, The Bristol Press, may fold within days, along with The Herald in nearby New Britain.
That is because publisher Journal Register, in danger of being crushed under hundreds of millions of dollars of debt, says it cannot afford to keep them open anymore.
Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations.
While politicians were whining about IBM's, Sears' and Montgomery Ward's difficulties, people weren't noticing how Walmart was replacing Sears' and Montgomery Ward's catalog operations. They weren't noticing that this little company in Redmond, Washington was helping eliminate most of IBM's market share with a product called Windows.
It's just a matter of time before the newspaper essentially dies. We've seen the articles about how the NYTimes sold off assets to keep its core business running a few more years. Minnesotans have seen the Strib's layoffs. Ad revenues are dropping industrywide, too.
When do we reach the point that we say "Let them die"? Here's a better question: Have we reached the point when we say "Let them die"? It's my contention that we've reached that point.
A good rule of thumb in determining whether something should be allowed to die is whether it can't survive without frequent government assistance payments. It's a fact that nature abhors a vacuum. It's also fact that markets abhor vacuums, too. It's just a matter of time before someone thinks of an efficient model for reporting the news.
This new model mustn't just be a 'tinkering around the edges' model. It must re-examine a newspaper's role. Jon Henke asks alot of smart questions about that in this post :
If there is a central problem with journalism, it is the lack of skepticism. Especially as it applies to government. Politicians and political organizations are not held to account for contradictory statements, false predictions and claims. Why did it take a Washington Post reporter so many years to learn skepticism, and why would he ever discard skepticism?I'm betting that The Bristol Press and The Herald that Rep. Dicastro wants to save are nothing more than the local mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. If that's accurate, then I don't see the value of artificially propping up these speicific newspapers.
The Right has convinced itself that the problem is "that liberal media", but that is obstructive rhetoric. Sure, there are a multitude of examples of media bias that favors the Left...but there are also a multitude of examples of media bias that favors the Right. People notice what they expect to see.
This isn't a problem of personal bias; biases are unavoidable and don't fit a left/right matrix, anyway. Ultimately, criticisms of Left/Right bias are tactical attacks against symptoms, not the problem itself. Crying "that liberal media!" delegitimizes our more fundamental criticisms. The problem isn't a biased media. It is a media that has lost sight of the role of journalism and reporters .
If there is even a question of whether they should be extremely skeptical of political claims, then they aren't really a Fourth Estate at all. They've just become enablers of the Estates to which they are attached.
UPDATE: Welcome HotAir readers. It's time we stopped this bailout mentality before it sinks the U.S. economy while wasting money by the fistful.
Posted Thursday, January 1, 2009 12:43 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Jan-09 08:57 PM
Freedom from government interference, subsidy, all that.
It cannot be a free press if not free to fail. People will read what they will, and get the quality of government the majority vote elects.
In some instances it is unfair - WE get the government THEY deserve.
Or, WE get the news reporting THEY deserve.
Either way, is there any better answer?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 01-Jan-09 09:28 PM
Eric, Stay tuned for a "better answer."
Comment 3 by seth at 02-Jan-09 04:16 AM
Eric Z:
A bailout doesn't mean anything with respect to the content. It is only a matter of money. Nothing more.
The call of "government interference" that's being made lost its touch when the South decided to favor it by supporting Wall Street.
Comment 4 by hawksruleva at 02-Jan-09 10:27 AM
If newspapers can't survive on their own, it's because people who used to spend money on them are no spending money somewhere else.
Comment 5 by eric z at 03-Jan-09 02:33 PM
Gary - Have I seen your better answer in subsequent posts, or should I keep waiting?
Message and outlets has been your follow-up, but what about "answer?"
Technology & Message
After the election, I wrote a number of articles about the need for a radical transformation of GOP politics. Many of these articles highlighted the work of the people at RebuildtheParty.com . This morning, I read a post by Redstate's Leon Wolf that puts things in their proper perspective. Here's what Leon said that most caught my attention:
In the wake of Barack Obama's astounding fundraising success in 2007-2008, which was largely fueled by an unprecedented web operation that collected millions of active donors and volunteers, many Republican strategists have begun to realize that the current state of web operations on the right is simply not acceptable if the GOP is going to be competitive in elections going forward. New websites are springing up left and right in an attempt to solve this problem, and established web sites and online activists have dedicated countless hours, posts, and emails in the last several weeks to navelgazing over this issue. I tend to think that much of this misses the point entirely.I'm not trying to start a fight between the people advocating a more extensive use of high-tech tools and the people that focus on sharpening the GOP's message. Instead, it's my goal to help ensure these people work together.
Don't get me wrong; our web operation is clearly and unacceptably behind the left's, and these discussions need to be had or we risk perpetual minority status. However, I am sorry to say that our enfeebled efforts are not going to reach the needed levels just because our candidates master the use of Twitter. You see, an effective web operation only links people as they are; it does not change people into something they are not. And the bottom line is that, more than having been beaten by a superior operation, we were beaten by people who were more motivated and willing to get involved and donate than we were. Obama's web operation was just a tool by which he took advantage of a pre-existing resource.
Now, as any farmer will tell you, it's impossible to run a modern successful farm without a lot of the modern fancy farming equipment that makes operating a 3,000 acre farm with less than 10 farmhands possible. However, all the modern equipment in the world is useless if the dirt you're planting your crop in isn't good for growing that crop. My point, at long last, is that our primary focus ought to be on cultivating a need and desire in people to get involved in GOP election efforts.
I didn't write this post believing that there's a deep divide between people like Patrick Ruffini, who wants to drag the RNC into the 21st Century, and people who focus almost solely on message. I think there's a far greater divide between RNC 'leadership' and rank-and-file conservatives.
One of the great challenges facing the GOP is sharpening our message and regaining our credibility on fiscal restraint issues. It's been apparent that many inside-the-Beltway GOP strategists don't see that as a priority. If these strategists don't start paying attention to GOP activists who communicate via Facebook, Twitter, the blogs & their iPhones, then they'll stay inside their Beltway echochamber without hearing from GOP activists. At that point, they're essentially useless.
One of the reasons I have high hopes for the GOP, especially in the House, is because there's an increasing number of politicians blogging and using Twitter. I thoroughly enjoyed the spontaneous nature of the House Oil Party last August. I loved how the House GOP drove the agenda during August.
It's important to note, though, that Twitter, Facebook, the politicians' blogs & YouTube were just the vehicle by which the House GOP got their message out. What killed it were GOP senators abandoning their House colleagues and joining the Gang of 20 when we had the ability to end the ban on offshore drilling.
That, along with McCain's voting for the earmark-laden bailout bill, ended Republicans' chances this election cycle. Had the Gang of 20 insisted on ending the offshore drilling ban AND McCain returned to Washington and said that the Gingrich Plan was the only plan he's support, it would've increased his chances of winning the presidential election.
Our first priority is to establish a conservative, pro-growth, reformist agenda. Our next highest priority is to use technology to getting that message out, sending out action alerts and fundraising. Finally, we must offer a sharp contrast between the Democrats' culture of corruption and our reformist agenda.
If we sharpen our message and use technology to get that message out swiftly and efficiently, we can regain our majority party status. That's the goal we all should have.
Posted Friday, January 2, 2009 12:09 AM
Comment 1 by Donna Foster at 02-Jan-09 07:52 AM
Modern technology has its benefits, but Twitter and Facebook tend to attract those who are already attracted to a Candidate, and are looking for more information. The fact that the taxpayer-funded propagandists in the public school system are teaching that Socialism is good and Capitalism is bad, and telling young people that Democrat Candidates are the "jocks" while Republican Candidates are the "nerds" means that the "technologically hip" usually have no reason to even check us out. So our focus, no matter what instruments we use, still needs to be on education. We'll never win the "we're cooler than they are" game. We're not supposed to be about style over substance.
The 2008 election was clearly "The Emperor's New Clothes" on full display. The Founders risked losing their lives to promote the principles we claim to hold dear...yet most of us aren't willing to risk losing friends, family members, business associates or business. Any Conservative or Republican who bows to social pressure and misses an opportunity educate those around them is part of the problem...not part of the solution. Through House and Senate votes, whether printed or on the computer, we can show people that they are voting for exactly the opposite of what they believe in...but we have to be willing to have the conversation first. We all have a role to play, we just need to resolve to play it, face to face, in our sphere of influence.
Comment 2 by Dave Thul at 02-Jan-09 08:05 AM
Twitter and Facebook are great, but don't forget to make basic internet exposure universal. In Steele County (Owatonna) it took a lot of net searching just to find basic contact info for the local GOP.
You have to walk before you can run.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 02-Jan-09 09:09 AM
Donna, Change is coming this winter in terms of educating people about what the DFL stands for. If it works right, it'll hit them so hard they won't know what hit them.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 02-Jan-09 09:23 AM
Everybody's right, but the thing most seem to miss is, first of all, that a)we don't yet have "a message," certainly not one that is clear, coherent, and consistent across all party units. More importantly, we do not have and can not get the most important communication tools-- newspapers and TV, from which a majority draw their view of the world-- on our side. We have to somehow blast that message out over the biased media. The easiest way to do that is to base the message in things that the average Joe already knows, like government wastes money, and that you ought to live within your income. Apply common sense to this "common knowledge" and you have real education occurring without the need for swinging any axe handles.
The other part of messaging is the "Army of Davids" mindset that Gary mentioned earlier-- the notion that we need to activate the activists, and get them to gain more activists, etc. The trick is to have something for them to do. I suggest that we use the Democrats plans as our springboard for developing our "message"-- that is, a popular, realistic and common sense alternative-- and from that we excite the Davids and beyond. Now, if we could just get our leaders to play that instigator role....
Comment 5 by Donna Foster at 02-Jan-09 12:41 PM
Gary, I'd love to believe that, and I pray for exactly that - even though most people tell me I'm horrible for "praying for bad things to happen to this country just so I can benefit politically". No...I'm just praying for the people to get EXACTLY what they voted for....whether they knew what that was at the time or not! However, we all know that even the most "common sense" types can fall prey to the media's spin on events. After all, most people only know what the media pounds into their heads during the top-of-the-hour news breaks on their preferred music stations. Honestly, most of the people I work with (think construction unions again) really believed the Clinton impeachment was only about sex - and they NEVER EVEN HEARD that he had committed perjury in a court of law, thus using his office to deny a citizen her right to justice. The people believe what the media wants them to believe. Such as: Democrats can fix the financial mess (even though their public policies caused it); Obama voted against the war (even though he wasn't even in the Senate at the time); and my favorite: "Democrats are for the little guy" (except that they think they are entitled to more of the working man's hard-earned money). If the people could be relied on to see the Democrats for who they are, they would have voted against every State Legislator who voted for the gas tax increase while at the same time appearing on the news telling us that the high gas prices were putting a burden on working families. I never assume the people are actually going to see anything...
Comment 6 by eric z at 03-Jan-09 02:30 PM
I would say, you have Huckabee, McCain and Palin, that's three messages. Throw in Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller, and if you thing just because the individuals died the positions did too you are shortsighted. Then throw in the Reagan-Bush softness and slush.
The problem is not lacking a message, it is reconciling all to the real and lasting GOP message, that of Nelson Rockefeller. If Squeaky From had shot straignt, we'd have had President Rockafeller. Never forget that.
When Nixon was purged, so was Agnew, and the Ford-Rockefeller contingent, complete with Rumsfeld and Cheney as then junior hangers-on, took over.
Democrats' Strategy Smacks of University of Alabama
Democrats like portraying themselves as the African-American community's best friend. That image will take a hit next Tuesday when Roland Burris will attempt to be sworn in as senator. The Democrats' image will take a hit because Democrats won't permit Burris to enter the Senate chamber :
Senate Democratic leaders think Roland Burris, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, will likely show up on Capitol Hill Tuesday for the opening day of Congress, according to a Democratic aide familiar with Senate Democratic leaders' plans.Frankly, the Democrats' strategy sounds eerily similar to when Gov. George Wallace stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama in a symbolic attempt to block two black students from enrolling at the school. The world has changed but the Democrats' racist tendencies still exist. In fact, it doesn't sound like their strategies have changed since June, 1963.
They have prepared a contingency plan in case he does, the aide added. Burris will not be allowed on the Senate floor, according to this aide and a Senate Democratic leadership aide.
The aide familiar with Senate Democratic leaders' plans said if Burris tries to enter the Senate chamber, the Senate doorkeeper will stop Burris. If Burris were to persist, either trying to force his way onto the Senate floor or refusing to leave and causing a scene, U.S. Capitol Police would stop him, said the aide. "They (police) probably won't arrest him" but they would call the sergeant-at-arms," the aide said.
Former Black Panther Bobby Rush sees the similarities too:
Rep. Bobby Rush entered the Racial Politics Hall of Fame on Tuesday when he asked reporters not to "hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer." The Chicago Democrat, who only recently said that Blagojevich did not have the standing to fill the seat, raised the stakes Wednesday on CBS by suggesting that if Democratic senators rejected Burris, they would risk comparisons with George Wallace or Bull Connor.I haven't made a habit of agreeing with Bobby Rush but I'll make an exception this time. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the only time I'll agree with him.
It can't be highlighted enough that the Democrats are both corrupt (see Bill Jefferson, Rod Blagojevich and Paul Kanjorski) and racist (See Harry Reid). What type of political party puts plans in place to prevent a relatively qualified black man from becoming a U.S. senator? That's unacceptable behavior, especially for the 21st Century. I didn't think that we'd ever see that type of behavior by the Senate Democratic leadership but I'll admit that I was wrong.
The Democrats' behavior is appalling, disgusting, disturbing and racist. Shame on them for returning to the tactics of George Wallace.
Posted Friday, January 2, 2009 9:45 AM
Comment 1 by Bill at 02-Jan-09 10:30 AM
There is no connection between attempting to exclude blacks from public educational institutions on the ground that whites and blacks should be segregated, and attempting to keep the appointee, who happens to be black, of a corrupt governor from taking his seat in the U.S. Senate. This editorial does not reflect well on Republicans. We should not punish the Democrats for taking a rare stand against corruption in their own party. Instead we can savor their squeamishness at being called racist, which they call us all the time. They should just learn, as Tom Bernard says, to take the racist bullet. But they probably won't.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Jan-09 10:54 AM
Bill, The Democrats aren't "taking a rare stand against corruption in their own party." They're playing political games while ignoring the Constitution & at least one Supreme Court ruling.
Comment 3 by Bill at 02-Jan-09 11:11 AM
What political game? You are correct that they may not ultimately have the law or the Constitution on their side, but I think they are trying to distance themselves from Blagojevich and his supporter-appointee. I don't think Republicans should accuse the Democrats of being racist in this circumstance. Rather, if they give in to Rush's racial blackmail, Republicans should note how spineless the Democrats are.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 02-Jan-09 12:24 PM
You can't distance yourself from a corrupt politician by rejecting a politician he's appointed according to his constitutional authority.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 02-Jan-09 07:17 PM
I'm trying to figure out what part race has to do with any of this. If the appointee were white, would Democrats still refuse to seat him? If he IS seated, will it be ONLY because he is black? So far, the only qualification I have heard for the fellow is the color of his skin. The appointment was not required, and appointment of a black man was not required, and the statements about needing a black man in the Senate were certainly not required.
Republicans need to sit back and enjoy the show while the Democrats do something right for the wrong reasons, instead of the other way around.
Comment 6 by eric z at 03-Jan-09 02:25 PM
I think this is all dodging the real Minnesota issue - the Senate exercising its rights as an independent branch with power to seat relates to Coleman, and Gary not admitting that dimension overtly is a bit suspect.
Comment 7 by eric z at 03-Jan-09 02:38 PM
Gary - There are dimensions to Burris beyond his race. Like Tinklenberg, he has a revolving door lobbyist background. That's there. It is irrelevant to the bigger question of how broad should the Senate's latitude to run its shop be, free of interference from the states and the other two branches. Certainly the executive and the Cheney [he seems to say he somehow is above and beyond being part of the executive, when it benefits his to will to do as he chooses] have done a lot of recent chest pounding on their separate perogatives; so let the Senate now have its shot. Let them seat Franken.
Technology & Messsaging, Part II
My friend Jerry Ewing posted a comment that's worth posting about because it's important to address what Jerry's said. First, here's Jerry's comment:
Everybody's right, but the thing most seem to miss is, first of all, that a)we don't yet have "a message," certainly not one that is clear, coherent, and consistent across all party units. More importantly, we do not have and can not get the most important communication tools; newspapers and TV, from which a majority draw their view of the world; on our side. We have to somehow blast that message out over the biased media. The easiest way to do that is to base the message in things that the average Joe already knows, like government wastes money, and that you ought to live within your income. Apply common sense to this "common knowledge" and you have real education occurring without the need for swinging any axe handles.The first thing I'll address is this statement:
The other part of messaging is the "Army of Davids" mindset that Gary mentioned earlier; the notion that we need to activate the activists, and get them to gain more activists, etc. The trick is to have something for them to do. I suggest that we use the Democrats plans as our springboard for developing our "message" that is, a popular, realistic and common sense alternative; and from that we excite the Davids and beyond. Now, if we could just get our leaders to play that instigator role,.
[W]e don't yet have "a message," certainly not one that is clear, coherent, and consistent across all party units.I can't argue with Jerry that we have a coherent, universal message. What I will say, though, is that we've got everything we need to quickly put a coherent, appealing message together. Ed Rollins and others have said that Reaganism is dead. That's BS. People that think Reagan's message is dead don't understand Reaganite conservatism.
At its core, Reaganite conservatism is based on the underlying principles of liberty, prosperity and security. I don't think that I missed the time when people suddenly said that they were too prosperous, had too much individual and societal liberty and were too secure both in terms of national and homeland security.
That's the framework that we should build our message around because it's such an appealing foundation. Nonetheless, that's just the foundation. The next step is much like building a house. Contractors generally don't stop once they've poured the footings, laid the block & framed the house. They know that sheet-rocking the walls, installing the wiring, plumbing and the furnace, siding the home and putting in the finishing touches are all part of the process of building a livable home.
To make us more prosperous, we need a well-educated workforce, high quality, reasonably-priced health care, low taxes and minimal regulations. The GOP has generally garnered high marks on taxes and regulations but they've usually not done well with issues like health care reform and education. That must change ASAP.
There are alot of bright people in the GOP who understand education policy, both from a funding standpoint and curriculum standpoint, who can stand toe-to-toe with the DFL and defeat them in an education debate. Some people that leap to mind that fit that description are Janet and King, my friends from SCSU Scholars . They've both got substantial experience with education, both having made a living in the education field. They're but two of the people who could debate education policy with the DFL and defeat them on the field of ideas.
Another area that conservatives should exploit is the issue of health care reform. Steve Gottwalt and Laura Brod have proposed numerous free market-based health care reforms. Last fall, Jan Schneider displayed a detailed knowledge of health care policy, especially with regards to the role mandates play in driving up health care costs. Josh Behling totally schooled Larry Haws on the issue in debate after debate, too.
The reason why this is important to shaping the GOP's message is because health care costs are driving profits down for small businesses. If the GOP wants to prove that it's the small business community's best friend, then we have to fight the DFL on health care reform. That doesn't mean adopting their policies but putting a smaller price tag on it. It means that we put forward solutions based on free market principles. It means proposing cafeteria-style health insurance which allows people to customize their coverage for their needs.
Here's another statement Jerry made that's worth thinking through:
More importantly, we do not have and can not get the most important communication tools; newspapers and TV, from which a majority draw their view of the world; on our side.Conservatives have seen the liberal media's bias seemingly forever. This year, however, journalism died. Bernie Goldberg has a book coming out Jan. 26 titled A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media . Hords of Palin-hating reporters from every major newspaper in the nation descended on Wasilla to find dirt on Gov. Palin but only David Freddoso and Stanley Kurtz looked into President-Elect Obama.
If we simply accepted that as our lot in life, then we should resign ourselves to eternally being the minority party. Having talked with Jerry on this subject, I know that isn't his attitude. I'll guarantee that that isn't my attitude. Conservatives aren't a bunch of whiners. We're a solutions-oriented bunch. The next logical question is straightforward: What can be done to correct this situation?
The solution requires a multi-faceted approach. Building Facebook networks is part of the solution. Writing concisely-worded LTEs about the most important issues of the day is another part of the solution. Reaching out to people who aren't currently part of our currently configured coalition is another part of the solution. Putting together YouTube videos showing liberals making stupid arguments is part of the solution, too.
A good example of utilizing YouTube effectively was the creation of the video of Maxine Waters saying that Fannie and Freddie were fine "thanks to the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines."
The reason why that was effective was because it exposed Democrats saying something that the American people knew wasn't factual or accurate. We should jump at every opportunity to highlight that type of statement.
Finally, we can avoid the slobbing media's filter with direct mailings when the subject is important enough. This isn't something that will be a big part of our repertoire but if it's used in the right situations, it can be highly effective.
The point I'm making is that we can get our message out just fine if we're smart about it. It just means using every tool at our avail. That'll require hard work but it's definitely doable.
Posted Saturday, January 3, 2009 10:30 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Jan-09 11:01 AM
Thank you for the kind remarks and the usual astute observations. I would like to add a few things.
Education and health care both have simple, common sense solutions that, while not well known, could be made known with the right communications. I was proposing using our opposition to the Democrats' plans as one such communications vehicle. Beyond shilling for liberals, the media still like a good fight.
The second piece is akin to the first, where again you have been right all along in saying that we need to master the new media to an even greater degree than the Obama campaign did, as the way of bypassing the old media, but =in a pre-emptive fashion.= If these common-sense solutions were being circulated, discussed and known to a wide and growing Army of Davids before the Democrats even proposed their ridiculous schemes, we could win battles right now, and then accept victory in the 2010 elections.
Comment 2 by eric z at 03-Jan-09 02:19 PM
Reagan was an opportunist, and if you don't think the GOP owns the media, look around.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 03-Jan-09 03:39 PM
First, Reagan wasn't an opportunist. Contrary to the Democrats' portrayal of him as an "amiable dunce", the truth is that he'd thought things through for years in terms of policy.
In truth, the principles underlying his policies are eternal. He pursued tax cuts in his quest of making America a prosperous nation again.
Remember that we'd just had 4 years of (a) Jimmy Carter telling us that our best years were behind us, (b) double-digit interest rates, high unemployment & crippling unemployment.
Reagan built up the military because Carter had stripped it to almost nothing. I have a friend who served in the Marines who's told me about how they didn't have spare parts for the hardware they used.
As for the media, yes, conservatives own talk radio but that's about it. The NY Times, Washington Post & the NBC family act consistently as Democratic apologists. MSNBC is so bad in that respect that I can't even consider them journalists.
Comment 4 by Donna Foster at 03-Jan-09 08:01 PM
Finally, someone with some clout has stated what I have been requesting since 2004. Everytime the democrats in the Legislature do something - like override Pawlenty's veto and raise gas taxes when the prices were already sky high - a direct mailer needs to go out to everyone! Why wait until election time when the people's mailboxes are saturated and they are automatically expecting to be lied to?? If I had the money...I'd do it myself...but I'm not one of those "rich Republicans". If there are so many of them....why haven't I been able to find any? I'd love to see mailers saying: "During the campaign, Tim Walz said blah blah blah - but today on the floor of the House of Representatives, he voted for blah blah blah". You get the picture. I've been saying that you have a better chance that those things are going to be read, and the people might actually get educated on things their representatives are doing, if the people weren't getting 10 of them at a time. Why is it that we think we only need to educate the people during election season??
You are absolutely correct that the common sense approach works. Try telling some blue-collar dad that the guy he just helped elect as President voted AGAINST a law that would've made it illegal for some pervert to take his 13-year-old daughter across state lines for an abortion without his knowledge. That really gets them. My husband likes to use that one with Democrat supporters at work...then he gives them the actual printout of the vote. They can't argue with a printout from the House of Representatives website. The people have forgotten that we are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, and that the idea behind voting is to elect people who REPRESENT YOU! I meet people every day who think just like me on each individual issue.....but vote the opposite.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 03-Jan-09 11:14 PM
Donna, you're referring to the "permanent campaign." It's something the Democrats do and Republicans don't. Every week our local paper features at least one LTE attacking our GOP Congressman, or one of our Republican Representatives, or Republicans in general. Rarely are they even challenged. We've got to get up off our collective cans and start explaining the obvious to people to whom it's not. Conservatives have always believed that their ideas are so obviously superior that they need no defense and no education. We're wrong.
Comment 6 by Steve at 04-Jan-09 12:43 AM
Great post!
Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Comment 7 by snaggletoothie at 04-Jan-09 02:52 AM
eric z
If the Republicans own the media why do Democrats get a free pass on what they did to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? http://fishwrangler.blogspot.com/2009/01/some-palestinian-history-ignored-by-msm.html
Chargers Defeat Colts, Send 'Hottest Team in NFL' Home
When Shawne Merriman was lost for the San Diego Chargers the first week of the season, most people wrote them off as a playoff team. A month away from the end of the season & people were still writing them off.
Meanwhile, Peyton Mannning had another MVP season; the Colts finished the regular season with a 9-game winning streak, Bob Sanders got healthy & Dwight Freeney played like Dwight Freeney.
Theoretically, Indianapolis should've won this game.
Unfortunately for the Colts, they play the games for a reason. What got exposed Saturday night was the fact that not even Peyton Manning can win games if he doesn't have a running game or an offensive line. Time after time, Manning was forced to throw in what should've been running downs. Third-and-2 isn't a passing down for many teams. This year, it was for the Colts.
Frankly, the Colts' offensive line lost them the game. They lost it because they couldn't punish the defense. For that matter, they couldn't even force the Chargers to respect the running game. Had the Colts' offensive tackles played well, they could've run a more balanced offense. By itself, that would've made Peyton Manning 10 times more dangerous.
Because they didn't have to respect the run, the Chargers were able to put extra effort into disguising their pass defenses. (It doesn't hurt that they've got Antonio Cromartie & Quentin Jammer at corner, either.) They could throw exotic blitzes, disguise their blitzes & generally wreak havoc. The Chargers knew they could do this because the Colts' running game wasn't likely to hurt them.
This time of year, the teams that cover well & are the most physical team offensively usually win. That played out tonight. What makes this even more stunning is the fact that the Chargers lost the turnover battle 2-0.
Speaking of physical, one player that surpised me with his toughness was Darren Sproles. He carried the ball 22 times for 105 yards, many of those yard coming on runs up the middle. Sproles was a terror in the return game, too, finishing with 328 all-purpose yards, the third most in NFL playoff history.
Another thing that can't ignored is the role punter Mike Scifres played tonight. Not since the days of Ray Guy have I seen a punter have such a dominant game. Scifres punted 6 times, pinning the Colts inside the 20 yard line each time. That would be a great game by itself but there's more to Scifres' night than just pinning the Colts deep. He averaged 52.7 yards per punt, including a 67 yarder than pinned the Colts inside the 5 yard line.
Manning had a subpar game for him. During his MVP march in December, he completed 81.8 percent of his passes. Tonight, he was 25 of 42, which is less than 60 percent. While he threw for 310 yards, that stat was misleading, too, with almost half of those yards coming on 5 plays, including a 72 yard TD pass when the Colts caught the Chargers napping.
Simply put, the Chargers won because they were the dominant team. If not for the 2 Chargers turnovers, this game wouldn't have gotten to OT.
This figures to be a difficult offseason for the Colts. Tony Dungy might've coached his last game for the Colts. The Colts' offensive line needs improvement. They also need to upgrade their receivers & secondary depth.
For now, though, they've got lots of time to figure out how they'll address their needs. In fact, right now, the only thing the Colts have in abundance is time.
Posted Sunday, January 4, 2009 3:31 AM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 04-Jan-09 07:02 PM
Yeah and now that the Ravens won I have to figure out where I am going to hide out during next weeks Steelers/Chargers game. The Logical Husband is a Steelers fan and the Junior is a Chargers fan!
LL
Message and Technology, Part III
Anything that Patrick Ruffini writes on the subject of using technology to return the GOP to majority party status immediately gets put on my must-reading list. Patrick posted something on the subject yesterday that I didn't get to think through. I made reading and thinking it through a priority of my Saturday morning.
The starting point of Patrick's post is Leon Wolf's post that I also referenced . Further down in Patrick's post is this nugget of wisdom that needs to be expanded on:
Attacking technology as a way to rebuild the party misses the point in another way. It assumes that technology is just a tool, that it doesn't change the dynamics of the political process itself. And that it can't be an instrument in nudging along the kind of change we all want on the issues and ideas front.EXACTLY RIGHT!!! This isn't an either-or question. It's a rare double-sided truth. One wouldn't exist without the other.
Were MoveOn.org and the netroots primarily about technology or ideology? The answer is both. They were instruments for the ideological "reformation" of the party that just happened to use technology . They were both successful because they tied technology to sense of political purpose, direction, and action.
There's great potential for technology to change existing political dynamics. I suspect that we could've changed a number of US House and Senate races had the RNC been more tech savvy. We could've changed even more races if we hadn't frittered away our credibility on fiscal restraint issues.
Here's something else we need to think about:
Without technology, the Democrats' path to power would have looked very, very different. Their purpose-driven use of technology sped up the process of giving the grassroots an ownership stake within the party and feeling like they could safely get involved in official Democratic politics again.The current leadership models of the RNC and the Minnesota GOP are top-down, leadership knows best models. That definition is the opposite of grassroots activism. In fact, it tells us that they know best & we're just obligated to follow their orders. That isn't just a flawed system. It's a fatally flawed system. It isn't enough to just tinker around the edges.
It's time we demolished the current model and instituted a new bottom-up model. This new model would insist on the RNC and the MNGOP making time and listening to the activists instead of talking down to them.
Any candidate for RNC Chairman who doesn't subscribe to that thinking should be ignored. Any candidate for chairman of the MNGOP who doesn't have a history of thinking outside the box should be immediately eliminated. Here's why it's important:
Right now, there is a poisonous divide between the official Republican Party and the grassroots. This is the inevitable consequence of the bailouts, spending, and Medicare Part D and probably couldn't be any other way after eight years in the White House. But over the next few years, it has to be a goal to get the grassroots looped back into the party and in fact get them in the drivers' seat shaping the ideas and priorities of the party . For an opposition to be effective, it must be united. This means breaking down or rendering irrelevant the elitist mindset of the political class that divides it from the grassroots , and working as one united Republican Party in the think tanks, on the ground, and online to be an effective foil to the Obama Administration.If there's anything that the MNGOP leadership does consistently, it's that it doesn't listen to local activists. They're professionals at barking out orders that undercut the efforts of local activists. There isn't a big difference between the MNGOP and the RNC in that respect.
It's time that the inside-the-Beltway types at the RNC, along with the control freaks in the MNGOP, to actually start listening to local activists. Until that happens, local activists will be forced to go around the elitists in leadership.
The Army of Davids concept is totally lost on these people. I've seen too many bits of proof that showed the leadership thinks that they're the only people who know what they're talking about. They couldn't be further from the truth.
Utilizing Facebook, Twitter and other products will allow the activists to work around the leadership. That's certainly what MoveOn.org did. We the People should be putting forth suggestions on what our message is. We should use these tools to sharpen and refine our message, too.
Until we eliminate the elitism that inhabits the leadership at the state party and the RNC, we won't repair the 'GOP brand'. That must be our first priority unless we want to be the minority party for a generation.
Posted Sunday, January 4, 2009 11:15 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 05-Jan-09 09:05 AM
I disagree with your assessment of party leadership, for exactly the reasons you use to condemn them. The simple fact is that they do not use technology to enable them to manage the party "bottom up" and therefore are stuck in the old top down model. You can blame them for not using the tools that they could use, but not for managing the party with the best tools they have.
Beyond that, you are absolutely right. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, has a slogan-- "TICE." It means "the Internet changes everything." The instant and widespread development and dissemination of positions, plans and policies is a radical change to the operation of the Party, requiring only two things: An organizing purpose, and the will to use the technology to its fullest. So, how do we get there?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-09 10:58 AM
Jerry, It's rather obvious that Ron Carey isn't interested in hearing from anyone who has a different opinion than him. Technology isn't the issue with him. He's a control freak who doesn't have the GOP's best interests at heart.
Comment 3 by eric z at 05-Jan-09 02:05 PM
"Without technology, the Democrats' path to power would have looked very, very different. Their purpose-driven use of technology sped up the process of giving the grassroots an ownership stake within the party and feeling like they could safely get involved in official Democratic politics again."
I don't buy into that. I would say giving the grassroots the appearance of a stake, in exchange for campaign cash more than normally moving bottom up.
What you are saying is more change happened among the Democrats than I expect happened. They won big two cycles, Bush-Cheney and war failures being a common thread. I expect the Dems will show during the Obama presidency whether that quote is correct or giving more credit than is due. I expect warmed over Clintonism, appointments already suggest that, and actual or far-reaching change would surprise me. The DC system is built to quell change. Too many have invested stakes in THAT not changing.
Grassroots money raising, that happened, and with it the victors not being beholden to traditional wealth is possible - for either party.
But will either entrenched party leadership want that? Will either do that? Is Obama different from business as usual that way?
Along such lines, do you suppose Caroline Kennedy will be appointed Senator from New York? Privilege has more openly been a GOP thing, but it will be interesting to see first, will she be appointed, and then second, if appointed, how she will perform in her uncle's shadow.
On the GG - J.Ewing discussion, I think traditional leadership and technology are entirely independent. The military has bell-ringing technology, but also entrenched hierarchy.
And Larry Ellison is not universally well regarded. Some see him as a Mark Cuban with more money. I prefer Kieth Ellison.
I do not know Ron Carey, but I see his view of employing technology as giving Brodkorb credit for being in full lockstep with Ron Carey.
I could be wrong, you guys know both of them better than I do.
Popcorn Factor Intensifies
When the Lady Logician talks about the Blagojevich scandal, it's automatic that she'll talk about the "popcorn factor" involved. I suspect she's thinking in terms of grabbing a bowl of popcorn, then sitting down and watching the food fight. The popcorn factor just intensified.
The Chicago Sun-Times's reporting indicates that Harry Reid opposed Gov. Blagojevich appointing Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis and Emil Jones. This opposition came after teh election but before Gov. Blagojevich's arrest. Here's what the Sun-Times is reporting:
Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn't want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.That isn't the only news on the Blagojevich front, either. ABC News is reporting that behind-the-scenes discussions are underway , with the goal of setting a meeting between Sen. Reid and Roland Burris:
Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Sources say the Senate majority leader pushed against Jackson and Davis, both Democratic congressmen from Illinois, and against Jones, the Illinois Senate president who is the political godfather of President-elect Barack Obama, because he did not believe the three men were electable. He feared losing the seat to a Republican in a future election.
The Senate sergeant at arms, Chief Terry Gainer, expressed confidence that a confrontation on the Hill can be avoided, according to a Democratic Senate aide. The aide said the Senate majority whip, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, is working behind the scenes to set up the meeting between Burris and Reid.Though he won't admit it, this is Reid's highest priority. The last thing he wants at the start of the 111th Congress is for there to be a fight between the Senate and the Congressional Black Caucus. If Reid doesn't cave on this, that's exactly what would happen. Anyone who thinks that Maxine Waters, Bobby Rush, Chakka Fatah and Sheila Jackson-Lee wouldn't raise a huge stink about this is kidding themselves.
The CBC's howls will be that much louder now that the Sun-Times is reporting that Reid didn't want Gov. Blagojevich appointing Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones to Obama's seat.
It's my prediction that Reid will cave on this like a house of cards because he can't afford to fight this appointment. It's also my prediction that President-Elect Obama won't provide much political cover in this fight.
Rest assured that I'll keep my eyes on this debacle as the popcorn factor intensifies.
Posted Sunday, January 4, 2009 11:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Jan-09 12:52 PM
It was good of you to focus on this situation in ways that many readers might not be aware of - the Dems wanting first and foremost a dynamic electable successor to Obama, in the Obama seat. Whether that's Tammi Duckworth or not is a separate question. Burris does not seem dynamic, but the approach he has taken is non-confrontational, hence whoever he really is, he will be speaking softly.
Who would the GOP run in the next shot at the seat, if you have any idea? Have they a candidate they are united in "liking"?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-09 01:00 PM
Mark Kirk
Comment 3 by eric z at 05-Jan-09 01:30 PM
Mark Kirk - I took a quick Google. He looks better than some, and like a good candidate - though GOP.
I don't envision any photos surfacing of him buying Obama Waffles at Tony Perkin's and Dr. Dobson's side show forum, from Tim LaHaye's ghostwriter.
He appears properly positioned to criticize corruption among the Dems. That is good, wanting his own house in order to be in that posture.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-09 04:34 PM
Eric, He's the reason why the Illinois legislature didn't pass legislation establishing a special election to fill Obama's seat.
Isn't Irrelevance Fun?
Thanks to two cycles of conservative hardliners "teaching Republicans a lesson", the GOP is all but irrelevant in the political process, both here in Minnesota and in Washington. Generally speaking, these hardliners didn't work to get Republicans elected. In fact, they just took their ball and went home.
I didn't have a New Years resolution until this morning but I've got one now. This year, I resolve to belittle anyone who whined about RINOs but didn't work on a solution. I further resolve that I'll question such people to within an inch of their life for not being solutions-oriented.
The reason I'm resolving to do these things is because these hardliners have put us in a position of legislative irrelevance. Here's the example that I've cited over the weekend. Had the GOP been the majority party in the House, the disastrous transportation bill that passed wouldn't have seen the light of day. A modest gas tax bill likely would've been passed instead.
Purist parties don't have sufficient numbers to influence legislation, much less the numbers to set the agenda. That's because the majority party controls the legislative agenda. Like Hugh Hewitt says, "Until you have the majority, you've got nothing."
This post isn't just about complaining, though. It's also about motivating people to be part of the solution, not just part of the Whiners' Choir. Last week, I wrote a post called Hunting the RINOhunters . It's a post that highlights the fact that some high profile hardline conservatives have called conservatives RINOs because they didn't vote their way on something.
The example I cited was Sue Jeffers calling Steve Gottwalt a RINO because he voted for the smoking ban bill in 2007. I then pointed out that calling Steve a RINO destroys Ms. Jeffers' credibility because she ignored the string of health care reform proposals that relied heavily on free market principles. She also ignored Steve's voting against every major tax increase and against the irresponsible spending bills that the DFL originally passed.
I'm told that Jason Lewis has a similar all-or-nothing mindset. At some point, hopefully in 2010, Lewis and Jeffers will use common sense and realize that letting the DFL have a veto-proof majority in the legislature serves no useful purpose. I pray that they see that they're the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I further hope that they realize that the lesson they must learn is that we can't afford to lose any more seats in the legislature because if we do, tons of awful legislation will get passed.
It's time for the hardliners to become adults. It's time they realized that they're the reason why we're being put in a defensive position in the legislature. It's time that they realized that the only way to reverse this timeline to political irrelevance is by electing sufficient numbers of Republicans.
Frankly, at this point, I'd be ok if we retook the majority with some squishies. At least then we could set the agenda. That means we'd get to go on offense. It means putting the DFL on the defensive.
It's possible for hardline conservatives to contribute to the health of the GOP without getting their way all the time. I know it's possible because Andy Aplikowski is as hardlined a conservative as you'll find. He fights for conservative principles every hour of every day of every year. When it's time to elect Republicans, though, Andy gets involved in the nuts-and-bolts things that gets Republicans elected. Andy worked hard to get Republicans elected even if he personally didn't agree with them. In the 'offseason', he works hard to identify people who'd make good candidates, then works on recruiting them.
That's what adults do.
I'm not suggesting that we throw our principles away. I'm suggesting that taking a big picture view of elections will help us get more things from our agenda passed than taking a 'tunnel-vision view' of elections.
That's the only path back from political irrelevance.
Posted Monday, January 5, 2009 1:24 PM
Comment 1 by Sam at 05-Jan-09 01:54 PM
Don't forget the Campaign for Liberty nuts who decided that the RINO Congressman in MN was John Kline and tried to lose that election too.
Comment 2 by Brent at 05-Jan-09 03:59 PM
I can't believe it's only Jan 5th and I'm already reading an amazing post like this.
Every conservative should print it out and post it up where they can see it often.
I'm just so sick of hearing conservatives tell me that I have to 'vote' for a Democrat who supports a "bailout" just because the GOP candidate supports the "bailout." Or whatever the RINO-hater issue of the day is. conservatives win when they get more Republicans elected, not when their goal is less in number, but more ideologically pure winners.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 05-Jan-09 09:09 PM
Supposedly these conservatives "refuse to vote for RINOs" and insist that they "only vote for conservatives." I have a bulletin for you:
http://www.freedomdogs.com/news-archive-mainmenu-2/118-conservatism/3356-not-that-simple.html
The point being you go to the election with the conservative you've got, conservative or not.
Comment 4 by The Lady Logician at 05-Jan-09 10:46 PM
Brilliant post Mr. G.
LL
Comment 5 by Donna Foster at 06-Jan-09 10:16 AM
Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you! This has been irritating me for a long time! I generally love Jason and Sue, but they do us all a disservice when they serve to create purists...especially when all of us are out here encouraging our non-political friends to tune in to KTLK for their political education. To teach people that they are entitled to Representatives that ALWAYS vote their way is irresponsible and unrealistic. Look, when your choices are bad and worse....you have and show up and vote for bad in and effort to stave off worse! That is the sad reality. This same thing happened in 1986. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family encouraged Christian Conservatives to be purists, thus ensuring that 7 Republicans lost their seats. That turned control of the Senate over to the Democrats. In 1987, when a pro-Roe Justice resigned from the bench, Robert Bork was nominated. We all know what happened. A reliable anti-Roe voice was kept off of the bench because the loss of those 7 Senate seats altered the control of the committees in 1987. So, in 1992, when Rehnquist circulated an opinion that would have effectively overturned Roe...Bork was not there to agree. The sad fact is: Roe is still the law of the land today because of the unintended consequences of the actions of the very people who have been working tirelessly to overturn it since 1973!
I don't know how to include the link from this windows-based system, so you'll have to look up the article for yourselves: American Spectator October 23, 2007, "Dr. Dobson and Justice Bork"
Comment 6 by Mr. D at 06-Jan-09 01:19 PM
Generally I agree with you, Gary. Still, I wonder -- where do we draw the line? Was it wrong for conservatives to go after the Override Six? After all they were, ostensibly, Republicans. But as these folks demonstrated, when there was an opportunity to stop very bad legislation, they abdicated their duty. So is it realistic to support someone who betrays party and principle just because they have an "R" after their name?
I'm all for being an adult. But having a certain amount of discipline is part of adulthood, no?
Comment 7 by eric z at 06-Jan-09 03:04 PM
Look on the other side. Expediency alone does not work. Elwyn Tinklenberg's candidacy proved that.
How the GOP balance is to be struck is for the GOP to reconcile.
But keep the faith on demanding honesty. Both parties owe that. To their loyalists, to the other party, and to the nation.
Outright crooks should have no place in things. Ideologues are bad enough, and with William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham gone, things better for it.
And while I have never placed ET into that category, lobbyists and the revolving door can easily enough be avoided by either party, and the results may more than once prove such a step wise.
Back to one of Gary's points, each candidate is running in his/her race, his/her way. It is essentially decentralized. How then is party centrality balanced in such a context. Is there one message all can run upon, or is it each for himself/herself, but party loyalty first when it comes to organizing?
Joe Lieberman, as a paradigm for each side? Who's to say?
Comment 8 by J. Ewing at 06-Jan-09 03:45 PM
The theory, as I understand it, is that conservatives believe that if the liberals screw the country/state up bad enough, people will come to their senses and elect conservatives. Aside from the question of how badly you are willing to have the country/state screwed up by unrepentant and unchallenged liberals, the question is how you are going to win if you lose every time?
Comment 9 by Tom at 06-Jan-09 08:31 PM
LL: I agree with your assessment of the brillance of the post by Mr. G. It was this openness that built a viable party and broke the powerful yoke of the DFL in the Minesota County that you reaped the reward of moderates and conservatives that preceded you. What I don't understand is your lack of understanding of the importance of welcoming all that will assist in the election of conservatives? Why did you feel that allowing an interaction between delegates and candidates can only take place at a political convention? Unfortunately your legacy continues.
Pseudo-Republican?
Comment 10 by The Lady Logician at 07-Jan-09 10:24 AM
Please enlightening me on how I am a "pseudo-Republican" Tom. I would love to hear your "logic". Is it because I refuse to allow you to post unproven and unprovable lies about seat legislators on my site?
LL
