/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Politics of silencing opposition

--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/11/2006

I had this as a comment response to the previous post on this topic. I decided to make it a new post because I hate super long comments...and it will make this easier for me to find when I use this in the future.

One thing is becoming very clear to me...there is NOT a desire to resolve the issue, just like with complaints about Eibensteiner during the GOP Chair race last summer. Instead the efforts are intimidation of those who are out of line.

And the more this issue festers the more I realize that the right (right vs wrong) thing to do is keep on this until one of three things happen (in order from most likely to least likely):
1) The election comes and goes,
2) I die,
3) The problem is resolved (and time is running out for this).

The flocks questions and requests

All of your (Andy, Publius and the rest of the party-over-principles for Kennedy group) questions have been answered already. It amazes me how blind your group is to the actual complaints. I gave you examples to back up "the slanderous charges" and you guys act like I haven't…instead intentionally and deceitfully claiming my example was the issue.

This WILL be discussed tomorrow on the show, so if you HONESTLY want these answered and HONESTLY missed the answers before, you will have to listen somehow…or wait for the next post on this.

I'm satisfied to see that having the accurate label of "Party above principle" is not taken as a compliment. It was not meant to be a "happy descriptor" but to accurately label what is going on with this race. If you do not like it then there is hope that in the future you will put principles above the party. But understand that in this case when you say things like "Tony, this is one of those times that you should think about what is best for defeating the Democrats" instead of standing up for what you erroneously say is "making [my] point that [I am] right". I am not right or wrong because I am not the principle actors in this ordeal. The actual actors (the party, the candidate and the candidate's flock) are wrong. I'm just speaking up for what is right. Which means you are calling for the needs of the party over what is right. Basically you are standing for party-over-principles.

As it is right now do you deny the following:
1) The GOP could have required a straw poll for contested races. (At least the DFL has the decency to acknowledge all candidates)
2) The 6th CD GOP race should go to the endorsing convention with all 4 candidates
3) Shudlick should not be treated as a candidate because he is not "legitimate" (and for the love of God please explain how THIS was out of context).

What would Kennedy have lost by acknowledging the other GOP candidates? Absolutely nothing. What does he lose by the current road? Quite a bit.

A few truths you probably shield yourself from

1) The brazen attacks and complete dismissals that you guys have done in instead of addressing the actual complaint without spinning it has actually caused many readers to fear speaking up. I have talked to quite a few people (including MOB members). No wonder people fear the GOP on Freedom of Speech issues...this is what is happening by your reaction to bad (but true) news. Downright Nixonian if you ask me.

2) The whole ordeal, contrary to what you may think, is fair to discuss...in fact is important to be brought out. We are not monkeys to be told for whom to vote and that is what has transpired for the past 12-15 months. That's nice YOU support Kennedy without question. It is crap that Kennedy's flock and the MN GOP fixed the game so there would be the "impression" that Kennedy was unopposed.

3) I am not the only on-air personality that thinks this is a big enough issue to hold onto. I am not the only blogger that feels this lack of principle is important to shake out for the sake of the party. In fact, just yesterday I had other members of the media say that they are glad I'm grabbing onto this and would themselves join except they fear the retaliation from Kennedy, the GOP and the campaign's supporters. I have been getting calls all week about this. Do you see yet that you are creating fear by trying to silence any opposition?

There is no mistake to intent behind the following sequence of events. (A) I began bringing this issue to the surface. (B) This comment bringing the following: "Tony you have no openly vowed to work against or refuse to vote for the 2 top GOP candidates now. That could be something your fellow caucus attendees take issue with, and they could have you removed from delegate consideration and/or disallowed to vote that night." (I know, quoting you in disagreement is out of context…I don't submit to that lie.)

Different paths

I ask again (for I think the 5th time) what would Kennedy have lost by doing things like saying in his opening statement at the last debate, "It is a shame that the organizers did not invite two other candidates..."? He would have lost NOTHING. What would have been gained? Political points with moderates (since that seems to be the only thing you guys care about...political points) and it would have created the facade that there was an actual stand for the principle of right vs. wrong.

What does this current path by Kennedy and the party-over-principle actions give? A growing segment of the population (GOP, moderates and others) are growing disgusted with what they hear. Given the proper CHOICE between Kennedy and Shudlick there would be no question…people would overwhelmingly support Kennedy. But the issue is that choice in not being permitted. That offends us who believe in principles over party. It is seen as necessary to those who put party above principles.

If Kennedy (and his campaign…depending on who is calling the shots) and his supporters had followed the path of principles over party this would not be an issue. There would be HONEST unanimous support. Kennedy's base would be broader. And the chance of winning the general election even better. People like those I met at the caucuses would likely be energized to have bumper stickers, lawn signs, etc which has a growing effect on the rest of the population.

Instead there are active efforts to create the lie that there is no opposition. This is shaking some of the support off. This makes the base a little weaker and the longer this approach continues the greater the possibility of having compounding effect. Now those people at the caucus who never knew there was another candidate became so disgusted by the lack of acknowledgement PUT THE KENNEDY LITERATURE BACK ON THE TABLE.

Go ahead and attack me for killing the cause. That would be shifting the blame. I did not choose the behavior of the party, party chair or the candidate and his flock. I only call out what I see…the results are not my fault. To blame me (as I guarantee you will and do) is as intellectually bankrupt as blaming the Washington Post reporters for Watergate. They only called out what they saw, they did not make the decisions.

If I knew that Kennedy could lose because of me standing up for this issue would I continue? Yes. Why? Because I want this to be a party of people who stand up for what is RIGHT over WRONG. If they cannot do this even to their own disadvantage then they are not a candidate I want the party to support. Even if Kennedy & I were 100% in agreement on issues and Paul Wellstone or Hilary Clinton were running for office I would rather the party to NOT support someone who cannot stand up for Right vs Wrong. They are more dangerous than a liberal. Watergate happens, Abramoff happens, ABSCAM happens when people cannot stand up for what is Right vs Wrong. And each of those have resulted in more damage to the country long-term than even Carter put burdened this country with.

And though you guys are good and creating my positions (like the insipid "r2tr is not party of the GOP process like you think" pap) this does not mean I would support Wellstone or Clinton. In a head to head race there are 3 options. Support either candidate or support None of the Above.

Race to the Right and the GOP Process

You guys have really bent backwards to distort things. I have NEVER implied that we are a part of the process. That is a blatant lie that you guys are perpetuating. In fact, I sincerely believe that Kennedy fears real questioning and thus only came on the show to talk about Christmas plans.

You need to get your facts straight (and I'm fed up with trying to explain the truth to you…take off the blinders and pay attention). We invited Kennedy on. He accepted under one of 2 conditions. One of those conditions were met. Kennedy then reneged on the initial agreement and instead attempted to DICTATE the format of the debate to us on our show.

For those of you who have issues with reading comprehension let me restate that for you. He was willing to come on, I was not willing to alter the format. He agreed to a format and then reneged and I still refuse to alter the initial agreement.

Frankly, I could not care less if he shows up or not. In fact, because his no-showing would actually be a reneging of an agreement I would be following my policy of having fun at the extreme expense of the absentee. I have not yet decided if I will have someone fill in for him (and it would be 100% satire, if you know what I mean) or simply do some pre-recorded bits to accentuate his absence. I will have fun if he shows up or not so I do not care. Listen to the Tinklenberg interview that we did last fall. I do not take kindly to people that don't hold to their commitments as is shaping up to be the case with Kennedy.

Publius said I should be nice about the whole partisanship-over-principles ordeal so that I can get a Kennedy-Klobuchar debate after the primaries. If one has to kiss his ass in order to educate the population about him (via debates) then he will not ever be on our show. Furthermore, guess what would be a question for him in a Kennedy-Klobuchar debate. You are correct if you are guessing a very hard-hitting question along the lines of "How can we begin to trust you to fight for the little guys when you so easily dismissed the little guys in the campaign already?"


While it is easy to attack me (and that is why so many are actually being silent…out of fear from attack) the problem is not me. I'm just uncovering the roaches of the party. The roaches being the concepts of subjective dismissal of the election process, the embracing of party-over-principles and the effort to silence all resistance to that mentality.

Of all of the candidates in the Senate race Kennedy COULD have been my horse. But this ordeal is pushing me to the None of the Above camp...and I do advocate the positions I strongly believe in.

Fix the problem (stop turning away) or expect me to get louder.


Blogger lloydletta said...

Tony, John Ulrich is also running as a Republican for the Senate race. Ulrich just threw his hat into the race.

It's interesting that Kennedy is too chicken to debate other Republicans.

March 11, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Thanks for the heads up...Uldrich is already confirmed for the GOP Senate Debate.

March 12, 2006  
Blogger CmptrBug said...

Wow! I listed to the show today. Both callers were whacks. They had way too much time on the air - callers like that don't deserve that much time.

March 12, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Tom (our 2nd caller) was wrong in that he also is willing to put party over principle. Andy was on too long...and that was because I had (unfulfilled) faith that he would be willing to directly answer any questions. He couldn't do anything but spin.

I do not tolerate that at all.

March 12, 2006  
Blogger lloydletta said...

Maybe you could have a chicken stand in for Mark Kennedy.

I assume you'll have the show on podcast. I'll be interested in listening to it.

March 12, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

I have not yet decided what to do. I would not have minded if Kennedy did not renege on the confirmation.

We'll see. Understand, he is not a regular guy. He is the typical politician. His campaign did the double talk crap--"well, we don't like the fact that we have to debate the GOP candidate so we are not sure if we'll show up.

I figured it out. Kennedy's cover is they must concentrate on Klobuchar. The fact is by actually taking on Shudlick it will be discovered that Kennedy is not strong conservative, but moderate-right. Once that is discovered it makes it difficult to convince the base that he is not another Pawlenty or Ramstad. But by pretending he is unopposed, by perpetuating that fraud he will be able to lie to the voters that is not a Pawlenty-like Republican.

I'm going to sit back and see if there is any major demonstrable change from the candidate. If not then I will begin to yell about this louder and in more forums. I have met with quite a few Republicans and they do not like my decision to wait, but I want to see if Kenneyd's Party over Principles People fix the problem.

Before the end of the week I will continue on if there is not a correction.

March 12, 2006  
Blogger W.B. Picklesworth said...

Is anyone under the illusion that Kennedy is a conservative Republican? He's not and I'll be supporting him anyway because I think that he can win in Minnesota. Shuckledick? That just isn't going to happen. Yes, principle is important, but getting another Norm Coleman is better than getting another Tom Harkin.

March 13, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Ben, should he be fast-forwarding right now to Klobuchar?

March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Tonie, You're a hypocite. Check your last post and responses.

March 13, 2006  
Blogger Robin said...

regardless of the party, voters always benefit from a primary with challengers. If a frontrunner can't hold their own coming into a primary, how can they compete against a member from the opposite party?

March 13, 2006  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Seems to be a lively topic...

Tony, with regards to my call, you stated above that I was wrong because I was "also willing to put party over principle." How do you draw this conclusion? At the beginning of the call I clearly stated that I felt the party had a moral obligation to foster debate and that it was not doing so. On this premise we agree. Where we disagree is this sense of entitlement you believe that having these principles endows.

I can only assume you came to your conclusions about my position based on your last two questions from our call. You asked these two questions:

1. Should Kennedy skip ahead?
To which I said "strategically: yes"
2. Should the 6th district allow him to do so?
To which I said "No".

How then do you come to your conclusion? Because I said "no" the party should "not" allow kennedy to skip ahead?? Even though it's in his personal best interest to do so?

If I am not mistaken, You would answer Yes to question number 2 as well.

So how does that then make me "party over principle"? Because we disagree on the best strategy of the Kennedy campaign? These are apples and oranges.

I think perhaps you were still cought in the confrontational mindset from your first call and perhaps weren't listening clearly.
Here is my point: From a strategic point of view, Kennedy is best off ignoring his Republican opponents. On this we disagree but that's not the central issue. The central issue is what the party should do, to which we both agree they should open up the process. HOW they open up the process, however, we disagree. You seem to think that Shudlick and Uldrich are entitled to a straw poll out of "Principle". Principle doesn't entitle you to anything. For example, we hold some pretty majestic principles in our national freedoms, but these were paid for in blood. Nobody handed us liberty on a silver platter. Whining gets us nothing. If you want the little guy (as I do) to get equal access; then get some delegates and pass some rule changes. If you can't do that, then don't sit back after the fact and complain "but that's not fair! Your violating our principles!". My comment to you would be "Then stop letting them!".

I'll give you a personal example. When I ran for office in 96', I was challenging the husband of party head of my BPOU for the endorsement. He was pro-choice. When asked if I would honor the endorsement I said no, because Life is more important than the Party. Neither of us got enough votes to get the endorsement and I had to eventually beat him in a primary. Now It would have been very easy for me to have said Yes, I would honor the endorsement, and this probably would have cliched it for me, but as it was, principle came before party. It always has for me, always will. The Party Chairwoman did her best to derail my candidacy behind the scenes, completely unethical, which I won't go into here in detail, but my point is this, I didn't sit back and bitch and moan, I didn't get confrontational with the party, I just worked and gathered enough political support to beat my Republican opponent in the primary and won. Nobody needs to give Shudlick or Uldrich anything other than what the rules allow for, or what they earn. That's Politics.

But as it were, thanks for bringing up the issue, it caused me to look a little more at Shudlicks positions which I was not that familiar with. Not bad.

Uldrich on the otherhand is out to lunch just like cmptrbug.

March 14, 2006  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Typo: Ment to say "you would answer NO to question number two."

My bad.

March 14, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Actually I think you misunderstand my questions. So let me restate them and you & I can start from there.

1) Should Kennedy be allowed to skip forward right now to Klobuchar? (And within there are a lot of sub-issues like the party's role in all of this, etc.)

2) Should Bachmann be allowed to skip forward right now to Wetterline?

March 14, 2006  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Did I mention Blogger sucks.

I had a 3 paragraph comment written and it got zapped. Oh well.

To answer your 2 questions: The answers would be the same as Question number 2 on the call.


This of course is based on my assumptions of what you mean by "allowed" and "skip forward". But rather than me put words in your mouth, I'll let you define them as they were intended, should any miscommunication become apparent.

March 14, 2006  
Blogger Anonymous said...

P.S. You are not really restating the questions which you originally asked.

What you origially asked was: Is it OK for "KENNEDY" to skip ahead on Question 1

And on question 2 you asked Should "WE" allow the 6th districs race to skip ahead.

In the first question, I answered according to the object of the sentence, which was KENNEDY, and since you didn't define "OK" clearly, I took the liberty you afforded me by being vaugue, and defined it according to Kennedy's Strategic point of view.

In the second I answered again, according to the object of the sentence which you put forth, which was "WE." You also changed the qualifications of your premise from "Is it OK" to "Should we allow". The difference is, of course it's OK for Kennedy to skip ahead if he wants, it's his campaign, it's strategically smart to do so, and there are no rules stopping him from ignoring his opponent. But should WE ALLOW this to happen? NO. How would we not Allow it? By passing new rules. But As it was, these were two different questions about two different campaigns. As I said, Apples to Oranges.

But of course, if you ask incongruent questions, make them intentionally vaugue, force people into a "yes or no" box and then define your terms and conclusions after the fact without allowing for rebuttle and clarification; you can draw any conclusion you want, correct or otherwise.

These are excellent skills for a prosecutor, but horrible skills for fair judgement. The two positions should never be confused if truth is your goal. However, if power is your goal...well, hey, get a little button to cut off debate and have at it. And shoot off a gun in the studio once and while too. Play the role to the hilt - makes for good radio.

March 14, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

I guess I did not realize we were going to play precision semantics.

The fact that the 2 questions were structurally different is the result of differing realities.

On the one hand there is Kennedy (and the party-above-principles followers) has been actively trying to silence opposition. That is the existing reality. Hence the "is it OK."

On the other hand everyone is openly acknowledging opposition. So applying the Kennedy behavior to the 6th CD must be a hypothetical...hence the "should".

Is it OK, to your moral compass? You object to the party-over-principle label I placed upon you. So answer the question in your own moral framework.

You have 2 choices...Yes it is OK and you will defend it/allow it, in which case you are putting the party over principles. Or you say No it is not morally OK. That brings us to your question, "How would we not Allow it?" By standing up against it as I am.

Certainly it is a legal strategy from the Kennedy campaign. It is a questionable practice from the party. Is it the best strategy? Not if people who believe in what is moral, ethical and right stand up and make issue of it. That is why Marty & I have decided to escalate this issue to bigger people than us in the near future.

Join us in saying it is wrong. Not that you are against Kennedy, just against the methods which are out-of-line inside a party that stands for rules above men.

And as far as drawing my own conclusions without rebuttal...it is not your show. The callers are like the toppings on the pancakes. You get ONE shot to make your point. Andy happened to get more because I knew he would actually slip and give an honest answer: the important thing is winning. Which necessarily means principles take at best the second seat...and is EXACTLY the issue.

So if you ever call again just remember that you get ONE shot. If that ONE statement holds the potential to provide more information AND entertainment then we will engage you a little more.

March 14, 2006  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Oh come on Anthony, now your just being blatently disingenuous after the fact. The supposition that the two questions were structurally different between "is it ok" and "should we" had nothing to do with differing realities you were trying to present. It had to do with the fact that you were coming up against a hard break and were stumbling over your words to get your premise out. You even proved this when you "restated" the question in your blog, by using congruent sentence structure. Don't feel you have to defend yourself for the sake of defending yourself, Anthony. It just ends up making you look bad, like a kid who only wants people play with his ball as long as he gets to change the rules of the game any time he feels like it. I'm not trying to steal your ball Tony. You can keep it. I'm just interested in taking an honest look at this Kennedy issue.

I'm also not above admitting my own mistakes. When you asked the second question, I didn't catch the fact that it was in reference to the 6th district race as opposed to the Senate. It wouldn't have changed my answer any, but I'm not going to stand back now and say "oh I refered to it as Kennedy instead of Bachman because I was trying to profess some grand metaphorically reality".

I was however, answering the questions under the according to how you structure you presented them. FOR KENNEDY, he should ignore shudlick. FOR US, we should enforce a rule change to prevent this. I assure you, if you would have stated the questions on air as you did in this comment section, both my answers would have been No.

As far as It being your show, and you get one shot and what not..nobody is trying to take your show away from you Anthony. Well, I can't speak for Marty, but I know I'M NOT. You can run it however you want, I could care less. I can however, critique it how I want. If critics bother you, your in the wrong medium my friend. It doesn't bother me any if you cut people off or box them into corners dishonestly, I understand the necessities of the business, this isn't the floor of congress, it's radio. But when you play the "Answer the Question..YES or NO" game, it does make you look like you care less about the principles of honest debate than you do about winning. That is the image you present. If that's your schtik that's one thing, but its not giving an honest representation of your opponents argument, and that is quite apparent to the listener. Theres a difference between principled debate and uncouth tactics. Hmmm...Winning over principle, where have I heard that before?

Personally, I think it depreciates the value of your show. You have some really good arguments most of the time but then you fall into this trap of low brow tactics every now and then. It's like going from Charlie Rose to Jerry Springer suddenly. Don't you think that people see it as kind of cheap?

Example: "Yes or No! Do you think we should hand over all our nukes to the UN, YES OR NO!!!!


What, you said No?? There you have it ladies and gentlemen, another person who hates world peace and wants everyone dead."

Really, how honest is that?

But hey, Mortan Downey, Omorissa, Simon from American Idol. That's what the public craves, But it's not honest debate and I think you know that.

Anyways, having said that, back to the main issue...and the Party which you say "Stands for rules above men" as you put it.

I like rules. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Thats a good rule. Thou shalt not commit adultry, or murder, or steal. Those too are good rules. If the rules aren't just, then let's institute rules that are.

You put forth one premise to me (In your "restated" form) which is essentially this: Should we allow candidates to "skip ahead". And from the opening moments of the call until now, I say NO.

But your new caveat sheds a little more light now as to why you should think to label me as Party over Principle. You ask me (according to my moral compass) if I should defend it/allow it or not. BUT you define that as satnding against it AS YOU DO. In other words, if people don't use to your tactics, then they are not truly standing against this problem, nor will anyone be effective at defeating it?

Excuse me a moment...


Sorry, I had to clear my throat for a second. Ok, I'm back.

Oh my majesty, may I join the on thy glorious crusad, for thou truly art our only hope for slaying the evil horrible dragon that burneth our straw ballots with it's odious rules and pompous regulations.

Give me a break! Anthony...just because I don't want to whine about how the big evil Republican party won't share it's Ice cream, doesn't mean I don't oppose there position on this issue. But as it were, there's actually good reasons for making candidates have to work a little to get somewhere. Politics is a grueling cut throat business. A process that forces a cabdidate to have to earn their position does two things, it weeds out the bad candidates who cry every time something doesn't go their way and toughens up the good candidates for the real deal. It's not all that different than sports in this regard. But with regards to the straw poll, I think the party needs to reverse itself. You tell me what the party should react to, a tantrum, or votes. Think about it. To ensure that the little people get straw ballot access, you need to get delagates who share you views to support changing the rules. How do you get them to participate in a party that you are calling despicable in the same breath? If it's so shameful to be a Republican, how will you get them to participate?

There's two types of people in this world, those that produce, and those that extort what they can from the producers. Personally, I don' want to hand over political capital just because someone thinks their entitled to it. Make em' earn it. As long as you think "The Party" is the problem, you will be it's slave. Stop groveling for crumbs from them, stand up and realize that WE are the problem. Shudlick is the problem. Uldrich is the problem. Organize, produce the capital on your own, prove you can stand up, then take what you earned. Cuz I can promise you this, the party isn't going to cave in because we whined about it. That is why, I do not blame the party. If that makes me party over principle, whoop-de-doo.

March 14, 2006  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Man, I have no grammer when I type fast...

March 14, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

I did not know we were supposed to care about grammar in the comments section.

1) I did ask the questions differently because of the different realities. The GOP (party and members) and the Kennedy-flock are rigging the primary so that noone hears of Shudlick. The GOP (party and members) are parading the fact that there are "4 great candidates running" in the 6th.

2) "Yes or No" questions...After Andy started with his spin I decided to limit the platform for him. Call it Springer-like if you want. Andy would not answer the questions we had. He started out by asking us a question, we answered and he started denying the examples (from 1st hand experience) even existed. That put the whole call on an adversarial footing. We all knew in the studio that Andy was not going to be productive as far as discussion. The next goal (we even talked about this before the show) was to get Andy to admit that it is more about winning than anything else.

3) "Stand up against it"...Instead of justifying what is going on speak up against it. You had two choices to start with: stay quiet or speak up. You have chosen to speak up. Now you have two choices again: justify Kennedy's actions or speak up against them. You have chosen to justify them. So, from where I sit you are in the same camp as the Party-over-Principle flock.

4) Simon ROCKS. He is what the other 2 on that show are not: Honest. The few times I have watched that show he would say exactly what I was already thinking.

March 15, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

I was just listening to the audio for the first time. I'm even more astonished at how Andy refused to answer any questions.

The fact of the matter is the Kennedy clan has been pushing a double standard. On the Senate side, for reasons that are beyond quantification, they are making the race focused against Klobuchar strictly. However none of those supporters are able to articulate the conditions that would allow this to occur BEFORE a contested endorsement is resolved.

Which means that they will not say the GOP should "get behind" a candidate in the 6th Congressional Race to make that race focused against strictly Wetterling.

Double standard? Yes.

Why is this so important?
First, because this is being done arbitrarily with no clear definition of the conditions that justify this. This battle (about the process) is NOT about this one race. It is about future races. The next time there is a slightly better opponent running against the coronated it will be just as easy for the party-over-principle group to work the system so it shuts out that challenger.

My prediction: It will be the 3rd internal race from now with progressively better challengers before you have a Sullivan-Pawlenty potential matchup with the precedent already set to Shudlick the challenger.

That is the first reason this issue is so important. What standard is being used internally to justify this from anyone. And I think Kennedy should not be allowed to be above Right simply because it is beneficial to him. The epitome of fighting for principles is to do so even at your own disadvantage.

The newly rising importance of this battle is the blinders being worn by Kennedy's Party-over-principle supporters WILL lead to a circle the wagon mentality within the party. You know, the same circle the wagon mentality the GOP condemned Democrats for during Clinton's impeachment.

That is a hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out, explained and fought against.

It is the same hypocrisy that arose during the Miers nomination. It is the same hypocrisy that started to surface after the Scooter Libby indictment. It is the same hypocrisy that rallied around Tom DeLay's money laundering indictment.

Being a federalist I am at odds with a lot of the party platform...most of the federalizing of things, etc. I joined the party in 1994 completing my conversion from a liberal to a conservative. I learned then that the Party must never take #1 priority. That leads to disaster. I joined the GOP instead of being an independent because I believed that it actually did stand up for what is right.

This Kennedy race has opened my eyes to the fact that there is nothing higher to Party people than the Party itself. They are not confident enough in their principles to run on those. Instead they have to do things like what they are doing now with Kennedy. Some of the behind the scenes stuff in the 6th that I have heard rumored also indicate that.

As a direct result of this Kennedy race I have realized that I have been on the wrong side of term-limits. We need them and we need them desperately at the Federal level.

I have realized that I have not been a strong enough advocate of government overhaul. End the processes abused by Congressmen, such as franking. It is appalling that Congressmen use franking only in election years.

And my faith in the leadership of the GOP has been shaken badly. The new delegates I talked to understand the problem. The entrenched ones and the leadership in general seem to be the gardeners of party-above-all-else.

March 15, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home