I Am What I Am, I Believe What I Believe
--posted by Tony Garcia on 5/09/2006
There has been a lot of discussion around the blogosphere regarding the wake of Bachmann's endorsement. Those who like Bachmann castigate those who don't. Those who support the GOP over everything else try to guilt those have principles they hold before any political machine. Those who point out Bachmann's proven ethical-challenges hold that there is no way in the world that a conservative could possibly not support Bachmann's candidacy. The attacks upon me personally grow in nature...that's fine. I knew that the moment I opposed Bachmann for character issues the roaches would come out in force. I accept it for myself and I accept it to protect the many who are unable to go on record with similar positions. They fear doing so for the loss of their radio shows, blog traffic, jobs within the party, positions within their districts, friends who are Bachmann Backers or fear affecting their own candidate's chances.
I initially started this week trying to defend myself. But why? There is no need.
One of the things I found most interesting was the "charge" that I am not a conservative (in fact some even claim I am a liberal). It is interesting because this is saying that you can only be a conservative if you support Bachmann and do all that the GOP dictates.
But I came to realize that it really does not matter what labels everyone places on everyone else. So I'm not a conservative in the eyes of Theocracy chasing Bachmann supporters. It does not mean that I have become pro-big government. I'm still a small government, local control advocate...unlike the "conservative" Republicans who support Bush's education policies.
I guess being anti-tax is not conservative. That's OK. I'll take whatever label comes with being anti-tax. If that makes me a liberal then so be it. The position doesn't change.
I suppose that being for roads instead of rails is also not 'conservative'. Call me a socialist if that is what it means to be against Light Rail and against the Northstar Commuter Rail.
Somehow the names got switched and I missed the memo. I thought that liberals were for gay marriage. Since I am not for gay marriage I assumed I was a conservative. Guess I was wrong.
Being against Affirmative action is for the conservatives. Or so it used to be. I guess since people say I'm not a conservative that means being against affirmative action is also not for conservatives.
Pro-military...not a conservative position.
Support tougher immigration? Not a conservative position, but I want tougher enforcement and NO AMNESTY.
Gun rights...also something that I support and it seems is also not a conservative position.
All in all, I suppose I am not a conservative. That's OK. I don't try to be. I accepted the label but it is not the goal. The goal is the advocacy of the positions I hold. The goal is to find candidates that are good people and able to advance as many of my positions as possible. If a candidate does not possess both of those qualities then I go for the good person...because I would rather not enable any further the already corrupt world of politics. And a good person can be wrong on the issues while still caring about the country.
Definitionally a conservative actually wants to conserve the status quo. So in all reality I am not definitionally a conservative. Reform, reform, reform. Overhaul the tax systems, major reforms of the education system, end social security, severely diminish the Federal government, greatly diminish social services to able bodied people...all of these are against the status quo. Eliminate campaign finance laws as they exist; add term limits...against the status quo.
So call me what you wish. My positions still have not changed and will not change just because I believe in my heart that Bachmann is not a good person and therefore will do what I can to make certain her candidacy is not victorious. I know, the GOP is already proving that "Character Matters" was nothing more than a campaign slogan.
That is why they are so easily able to embrace Bachmann.
Marty posted that the answer is to stay in the party and fight the evil out. The state of politics today leaves both parties in a state not worth fighting for. They both are absolutely unable to see past their own letter ('R' or 'D'). They both are so horrifically narrow-minded that they exclude people who are not in lockstep on abortion. They both are leaning more towards building theocracies...neither understands Freedom OF Religion. One thinks it is Freedom FROM Religion and the other thinks it is Freedom of ONE Religion.
So, I believe in what I believe and I try to be as intellectually honest with myself as possible. When there is a conflict I try to resolve it (which is why I'm having some serious issues with deciding how I feel about the death penalty). I am not loyal to a party, but to my own beliefs. Label them how you wish. My beliefs do not change for a party, a candidate or a label from people.
Some say I am anti-GOP. Closer to the truth is I am anti-GOP post 2000. Everything I complained about from the Democrats for years I see within the GOP. Closer to the truth is that I'm anti-politician. Once they get into office they become different people. I believe in a higher being (dieist is not atheist, for those of you too dumb to know the difference) and I believe in an antagonist to that higher being. The Devil, I seriously believe, enters the hearts and souls of nearly all of elected officials. I have met a few who are exceptions, but not many. They become different people and typically not for the better. I am anti-incumbant. Incumbancy protections are the antithesis of what this country was founded upon and they ruin the integrity that should be in our government.
That is a lot to be anti-, I admit. I am for the underdog, the outsider, the newcomer. I am for the third parties being stronger, the occassional honest politician and the candidate who would rather lose being themselves than win at all costs.
I am who I am. I believe what I want. There is nothing more to it. Label it as you wish.
24 Comments:
Here, let me spell it out for you really clearly:
You don't have to like, endorse or vote for Bachmann to qualify as "conservative".
But people who"...vote Wetterling" or any left-wing goofball for that matter, for what-ever reason are automaticly dis-qualified.
You've been frothing at the mouth here for the last few days claiming that Bachmann somehow is ev-iiil, but I'll be damned if you've backed it up with anything other than a really stupid mpeg snippet taken completely out of context.
(The least you could do is to have your pal Avidor add some spiffy photoshopped pictures of Michele in a Nazi uniform or something just as clever to go with it.)
I have to admire the effort it takes to maintain so many blogs...but I suppose now we'll start seeing more direct cross-posting between here, "lloydlettas nooz" and your dumpster divers nasty little corner of the web.
I'd listen to your show..really, but I've heard pretty much everything that left wing fifth columnists have had to say about the GOP from your alter ego.
Swiftee,
I have posted more than just the clip. In fact, if you think the clip is "evidence" of anything but her assessment of what people are saying about her than you are highly obtuse.
Character matters. Can't support Bachmann. I have posted various items about Bachmann's character. You have the choice to either go back and read them or ignore them. Your choice, but to say that I have offered nothing is a falsehood typical of a partisan.
Explain my choices for the 6th. There is a kid running for the LP, an ethically challenged GOP candidate and a liberal/socialist DFL candidate (unless the moderate gets the endorsement Saturday).
Correction, kid for the IP, not the LP.
I could support the kid but that does nothing to help prevent Bachmann from winning.
The principles you just espoused are not embodied in the Wetterling candidacy. Way to stick to your claimed principles by calling on people to vote for her. Glad to see they ment so much to you.
You are not a conservative by a jury of your political peers, Bachmann supporters, GOP members, or otherwise the moment you endorsed Wetterling, NOT the moment you opposed Bavhmann. You want Fiscal restraints? Amen! Support 2nd amendment rights? More power to you on that. You want Campaign reform? OK. But these things made you at best another John McCain, except that McCain had enough political sense to not leave the Party and McCain knew enough to trash the backroom advances of Kerry's to join his ticket. You left the Party and backed Wetterling, and that is why you are in the position you are in now. So much for touting your principles. No conservative would back Wetterling ever, period.
Roger that Mayor.
I don't want to jump on the bandwagon here, but I would like to mention that Wetterling went back on a promise to Tinklenberg; an action with its own ethical problems.
Swiftee, you have met Tony Garcia. I most certainly don't have another alias. Impersonating other commenters or bloggers is more part of your methods than mine.
Hey Bird; you ever see Garcia and Eva Young in the same place at the same time?
Marty,
You are right...I forgot about that. It looks like I will be supporting the IP candidate instead.
Wait a minute...I'VE NEVER SEEN EVA EITHER.
I have to admit...as of this morning the new allegation will go unheard. The person who was threatened has decided not to talk to any media about the incident.
Ends-justify-the-means...I fight fire with fire. Bachmann plays nasty and so can I. I play on the level of the adversary and let them set the ground rules.
Creepy edited .wav files? The file I provided is unedited. The full context was her describing what people were saying at a rally. There was no editing whatsoever of the file except to save the quote and perform a standard "noise reduction" to eliminate the internet broadcast hiss that was on the recording. So again, your ignorance is showing.
My scummy tricks? I have been above board on everything (except for the interview of a victim of Bachmann's intimidation...which I admit, I should have not said anything until I secured the interview).
"she's evil"--I have said why I believe her to be evil. You obviously do not think that she is given the things that many are saying.
Justify her actions all you wish. The bottom line is that you are trying to rationalize why she is worthy of a vote beyond all of the things that are coming out of the woodwork.
I heard you being interviewed by the Northern Alliance on their radio program last weekend and was intrigued enough about what you were saying about Bachmann to check out the substance of your blogs to see if it could support the level of your accusations.
Here are some observations:
1)You don't seem to have a "smoking gun" which makes Bachmann way more evil than any other political figure in this state. Yes, her actions don't always match her rhetoric, and yes, she was willing to accept help from unscrupulous operatives and contributors. That alone does nothing more than lump her in with about 98-99% of the careerist pols in this state.
2)The slimiest piece of mail I ever got while I was active in the Republican party was a 1994 hit piece on Rod Grams signed by some of his former staffers and campaign workers when he was in a battle to get endorsed for U.S. Senate. It got misplaced years ago during a move, but the gist of the piece was this: We used to work for Rod Grams; we don't anymore; if you want to know why we aren't supporting him for U.S. Senate, contact us. The rumor mill was flying that Congressman Grams' marriage was on the rocks due to an affair he was having with one of his aides. Years later, he divorced and got remarried to one of his staffers, so there was probably some truth to the rumors. Still, the hit piece really bothered me because these operatives were saying: we have evidence that that one of the candidates has real moral liabilities, but we're not going to publicly reveal the details just in case he is chosen as our party's nominee. Talk about party over principles.
3)Back in 1990 at the state convention, I witnessed a Republican Congressman telling legislators and legislative candidates that he would not campaign for them at all if they did not endorse the character-challenged Jon Grunseth for Governor. Four years later, this same Congressman was twisting arms on behalf of a liberal incumbent, Arne Carlson, against the endorsed conservative, Allen Quist. The same type of threats were used against legislators and legislative candidates to grease the wheels for Pawlenty's endorsement in the Pawlenty-Sullivan convention battle of 2002. The lesson to be learned is that most party leadership is rotten and unscrupulous, comfortable with intimidating legislators, who in turn try to intimidate activists when they have the power advantage. The irony is that when Bachmann first ran for the legislature, she had to overcome coercive, intimidating tactics used by the Senate Republican Caucus (whose main operative was Brian McClung, now a top Pawlenty aide)in an attempt to prop up their liberal Republican incumbent, Gary Laidig.
4)None of the candidates for the 6th CD were perfect, because very, very, few candidates are ever going to be eligible for sainthood. I would've voted for Krinkie, because it's hard to beat his voting record, and because he's a down-to-earth businessman capable of engaging in genial conversation. That being said, there were probably some people working for him who would have tried to dominate the delegate-selection process like Bachmann did, but couldn't, for one simple reason: Krinkie's entrepreneurial, libertarian-leaning core of support wouldn't respond well to ultimatums and marching orders that work on evangelical, theocratic types.
5)"Party" primaries that allow participation from anyone are unethical. When liberal Dems can vote in a Republican primary and pick their opposition, the system is indefensible. However, in an era where politicians are all too willing to exploit their power to cultivate a slavish group of followers while only paying lip service to ethics or a platform of principles, the caucus system is also indefensible.
6)You are in danger of making this too much about yourself and personal conflicts, jeopardizing the larger point: that a state which never voted for Ronald Reagan has suffered for decades under corrupt or inadequate Republican leadership that does not deserve our allegiance. If conservatives and libertarians are ever to gain ground in this state, we will need to champion priniciples and common sense over government solutions, and avoid lionizing or demonizing anyone whenever possible.
7)By the way, I worked in politics before becoming an editor/commentator for alternative, conservative publications in the pre-blog era ,and then leaving that work for a while to help run the family business and start a family of my own. I didn't lead my comments with this information because I didn't want this discussion to be about me, but I just thought you might find it helpful in deciding the validity of these observations.
--Courier A
Courier,
Your words (and Marty's comment here) have done wonders to my position on this. Oh, and I love your blog.
You are exactly right, she is no better than the other slimeball politicos.
At this point I will be stumping for Binkowski or Tinklenberg. Wetterling, I forgot, lied about not running in the 6th.
"Smoking Gun"--the gunned decided to hide the smoking gun. I found this out this morning. That story gets swept into the shadows.
I hate the party over principles concept.
I was just listening to our interview with Sue Jeffers and her story and dealings with the GOP regarding the Governor's race is incredible. GOP...Party over Principles.
This year's events have made me less confident in the integrity of the caucus system. I know when I was in California long ago they had primaries but you had to show your membership card and your voter registration to get that party's ballot. I would be for this system. I used to think the caucus system was one of the best ways to thwart top-down party management. Obviously that is not true. The illusion of any benefits I thought were provided by the caucus system evaporated this year. The party's are still top-down, party boss dictating organizations. These are bad for any democracy.
Your 6th point...well stated. Taken. Thank you.
Which is it now-Tinklenberg or Binkowski?
You seem to be a master of distorting words. You make it up and run with it.
I don't have to distort your words Tony, you dig your own hole enough with them as it is.
But I am curious, since you have been on this "Party over Principles" attack mantra as of late; which of these two candidates is the one that comes closest to your principles-Tinklenberg or Binkowski?
Let's analyze the choices and my principles.
My policy positions are fiscal conservative, socially right-of-center on most topics. The principle that I also consider is that I will not vote for or support a candidate whose character is lower than mine. I expect more than that of public servants.
Now the candidates.
Bachmann, Wetterling or Tinklenberg (maybe both) and Binkowski.
Bachmann has some serious character issues (too many to explain away even on a case by case basis--from intimidation to campaign finance law breaking to so many other things) AND on a personal basis I cannot stand the woman. I get an ill feeling in my stomach when I meet her and have for over a year when I first met her.
Wetterling has some character issues. The most glaring CHARACTER issue (which I forgot about) is lying about not running in the 6th. Political asperations may have gotten the better of her...still that is political career over truth. I have an issue with that.
Tinklenberg, that I know of does not have character issues. Platform issues, maybe. But I was brought into the GOP years ago by the whole "character matters" mantra. It does. I expect more from a public servant than I expect from myself...then I will worry about their platform.
Binkowski...no idea what is platform is at this point. I have heard nothing about character issues.
So that leaves the field of votable candidates for me down to Tinklenberg and Binkowski. If Tinklenberg loses the endorsment and does not run in the primary the field of candidates from my perspective is Binkowski and a write-in.
While it was just a campaign theme for the GOP I still believe that Character Matters.
Now, if you had Esmay, Knoblach or Krinkie as the endorsed candidate the election would be a slam dunk for me. Character AND platform with Esmay and Krinkie, Character and partial platform with Knoblach.
I guess, a "None of the Above" campaign would also get my support.
MPR has a candidate page for Binkowski, but he's publically stated his platform is essentially the same as the Independence Party Platform. But I'll throw you a bone-he's a protege' of former welstone campaign chairman Chris Blake.
Tinklenberg you should already know enough from your personal dealings what his positions are, but if you need a refresher he has a website too.
This shouldn't be that hard to make a decision since you seem pretty good at spotpicking candidates as of late. So which one? Tinklenberg, Binkowski, or none of the above?
And do not say things like Bachmann broke campaign finance laws. Unless you can show me a conviction you are makeing an iresponsible and false statement that equates to defamation. It's just those sort of statements that have been getting you into trouble lately.
You want a conviction to be able to say that someone broke the law even when the evidence is clear? I mean, Clinton wasn't convicted for purjury but the evidence was pretty clear. Does that mean YOU don't hold that over him?
The fact is very simple: she broke the law. The question remaining is if the boards are going to do anything about it or if her explanation (as yet unheard in the public) is sufficient.
The facts are that she is having the taxpayers pay for her cable bills. You can dismiss it if you wish, but I believe that speaks volumes as to character...and how she really feels about fiscal issues when it comes down to affecting her.
The charges are (I have not seen the evidence but have heard this from many differing sources) that she has claimed exorbinate amounts of per diem...nothing illegal but again this speaks to her character and her "titanium spine" in financial matters when it comes down to affecting her.
The charges are throughout the district and the campaign thus far of intimidation and threats. These are allegations at the moment as yet unconfirmed. Based on the number of sources and the number of people involved I have asked for help in trying to track down the story. My guess is if this were a Democrat you guys would be howling a storm on the accusation alone. Since it is a Republican then you want a different standard: conviction of crime. I expect that. I admit that they are simply allegations. Take them for what they are worth: I expect you to put the same standards on these allegations regardless of party as you did with any allegation against DeLay, Abramoff, Libby or Clinton.
"he's a protege' of former welstone campaign chairman Chris Blake" Yeah, and Reagan was a hard-line Democrat. People change.
What I'm confused about here with you is that you seem to be making a case why I should suddenly support Bachmann...or at least vote for her. Get this through your skull: I refuse under any and all circumstances to support or vote for Bachmann.
I have laid out what the candidates are in my view. As of right now there is NOTHING on Binkowski's website.
So, what are you saying about his connection to Wellstone? That is an indictment of his philosophies but not his character.
Tinklenberg's website just recently put issues back up there (they were taken down the last time Marty & I checked) and will have to look at those to compare them with whatever Binkowski's issues are.
Like I just said, the race of acceptable characters is between Tinklenberg and Binkowski. I would love to see a None of the Above campaign. That's it. Which one will I pull the lever for? It depends on the platform of Binkowski. It sucks that the choice is between bad policies and bad policies, but that is how politics goes.
I wish the GOP would have paid more attention to "character matters" than just a campaign slogan against Clinton. If they were actually concerned about character this entire (tedious, boring) conversation would not be occurring.
So, mayor, what is it you seek for a result here? Are you trying to make a larger point? Make it then. I have been very clear and blunt about who I support, who I don't support and why.
Yes, I did change from the Wetterling support because her lie violates my expectation for character. If that was not clear in the last few comments I apologize for that.
So, before shooting back more drivel I ask you what is your goal here? If you want me to vote GOP in the 6th in 2006 you are wasting your time. If you want me to not advocate for an opponent of Bachmann or advocate skipping that part of the ballot altogether you are wasting your time.
What is your point?
Tony,
YOU ARE EITHER INCREDIBLY NAIVE OR INCREDIBLY FOOLISH. In the 24 years I have been of voting age, there has not been one candidate in any party that would meet my ideals for platform, philosophy, conservativism, liberty or ethics.
Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich were probably closest.
As a result I stayed out of politics for over 20 years (although I voted in most elections). In 2003 I GREW UP AND REALIZED HOW FOOLISH AND MORONIC THAT WAS.
The first realization was that a third party vote (except in a rare case where the candidate actually has a good chance) is not just a wasted vote, it truly is a vote for the opposition.
As an example, ask a Florida resident who voted for Nader if they are happy with the outcome of their choice. Instead of getting a president they agreed with on some things, they got a candidate they probably dreaded.
You may not like it, but that is irrelevant -- the fact is that in nearly all elections THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES. As Dennis Prager says, voting for a third party candidate is a form of masturbation. It may feel good, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing for society.
The second realization was that given there are only two choices, logic dictates that ONE HAS TO BE BETTER THAN THE OTHER. It is highly unlikely that when you lay out how the candidates would vote on a variety of issues that you would agree or disagree with each equally.
Not only then did I realize that it's worth supporting a candidate that I agree with 70% of the time over one I agree with 20% of the time -- that's easy.
I also realized that it's worth supporting a candidate I disagree with 80% of the time if they are running against a candidate I disagree with 95% of the time.
In other words, if the only way to keep a liberal democrat from winning would be to run a RINO like Chafee, you bet I would get behind Chafee. It would do no good to nominate a more conservative candidate if they are only going to pull 30% of the vote.
Heck, if Diane Feinstein were running against Nancy Pelosi, you bet your ass I would be even be out there campaigning for Feinstein -- even though I feel like I need a shower after writing that.
Lastly, in regards to ethics...Winston Churchill said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others. Our system has inherent flaws that by nature makes it virtually impossible for anyone to remain pure. Whether it's playing loopholes in a system, trading votes to get something through, etc. I think your idealistic expectations are noble, but highly unrealistic.
I wanted to add that I think your anger should not be directed at Bachman for working the system, but the system that allows it. Work for change in that area.
I'm not in the 6th, but had I been, Bachman would have been my 3rd or 4th choice as a candidate. Now that she has the nomination, I will support her.
Sigh.
Tony,
The drivel is your rambling. I started out asking you a simple multiple choice question and you turn it into an essay. Very well, I will run through your diatribe...
1. Clinton's scandel was based on media reported facts. When they talk about allegations, it is backed up with sources who are backed up by notes or recordings from the journalist. If called upon by a court to reveal their sources, they can, because the sources knew they were talking to a Journalist and agreed to be a source. Joe said that bob said that jim said; is not a source...it's hearsay. If all you have is gossip or passing conversations and not people who knew that what they were telling you was subject to being reported in a media like radio or a blog, then they are not a "source", unamed or named. Whatever this Big Secret is, if you still have to track down your sources then you shouldn't blab crap until you got the notes to back it up. Which obviosly, you do not. If you don't know the difference between how Dan Rather's Bush Air Gauard debaucle and Drudges breaking of the Lewsinski scandel, then you need to learn some "ethics" and "character" before attacking Bachmann.
2. People change? Get your facts straight before you speak (see point number 1) Binkowski didn't "Change" from being Blake's protege this year...she's agreed to run his campaign. Maybe there was some change in the last hour or two that I don't know about. I'm sure you had your sources.
3. Get this through your thick skull: I didn't ask you to vote for Bachmann. I asked you to pick between two other candidates. Trust me, your support in the GOP is not wanted.
4.I didn't direct you to Tinklenbergs website, I already know of its brevity. I directed you to the MPR candidates site for him and to the IP platform. As I stated, he has already said the IP platform essentially is the same as his.
Look, I'll make this real simple for you. Let's talk in a language you seem to understand. Let's use the "yes or no" tactic from your show.
3 choices:
A. Tinklenberg
B. binkowski
C. None of the above.
You state you need time to get to know thier positions first? fine. Take all the time you need. Read up on them. Listen to past interviews. Check with your "Sources". whatever...
Get back to me when you can type a single letter. you think you can do that? Can you hold yourself to the same standards you use on your guests? Let's find out. I don't care for your essays, i've heard it, everyone has heard it. I just asked a simple question. When you can give me a simple one letter answer, let me know.
A...B...or C.
Can he limit himself to a one letter answer? Can he hold himself to the standards he applies to others? We'll find out.
*point 4: ment brinkowski not tinklenberg
Pfft..so now your mystery slimer pulled the plug on your big breaking story.
Imagine my surprise.
I wonder if a quick search of the westlaw database for the definition of slander didn't have something to do with that.
And NOW, you're jumping from one lefty goofball candidate to another without knowing a fucking thing about them.
I'd say it's time to stop fooling around with your medication dosages.
Post a Comment
<< Home