Residual Response

Last week I started the ARUC podcast...just a short podcast to supplement the blog. It was about the opposition to a fiscal conservative challenge to the fiscally moderate Pawlenty.

Sadly, that issue is the continuing thing in some parts of the blogosphere. "Jeffers is a Libertarian so she is a bad candidate."

That is exactly what a partisan would say as their number one reason for being against a candidate. In the meantime anyone who supports a free market on ideas is being shot down as "hating Republicans". You see, if you don't support all Republicans then you must hate them all.

The problem with politics today is that people do not understand (a) what they REALLY believe, (b) what their opponents are REALLY saying and (c) the meaning of the words they speak.

Opposition does not equal racist.
Opposition does not equal sexist.
Opposition does not equal Hitler.
Opposition does not equal hate.
Opposition does not equal fringe.
Opposition does not equal hypocrisy.

Yep, the Republicans do this as much as the Democrats. Neither can understand that they do EXACTLY for their main strategy what they complain about the other.

Now let's take Andy at Residual Forces as a perfect example of this.

Over a year ago Mark Kennedy announced he would be running for Senate. I have already discussed the ways Kennedy (personally and through his campaign workers) and the party have been trying to create the illusion that noone else ran. Others were chased away by insults from Kennedy supporters towards other potential candidate supporters, inappropriate endorsements and other tactics. The tactics carried over into the GOP Chair race last summer where Kennedy supporters claimed that electing out Eibenstiener was mutinous and done by idiots. Yep, support who they want or you are an idiot.

Andy was among these people trying very hard to silence ALL opposition, to denigrate the opposition and attack their very person.

The mud went like this:
1) "They are ignorant." The responses would lay out WHY there was opposition.
2) "See, they just continue saying one thing...they hate Kennedy/Pawlenty/Eibenstiener" (yep, HATE). The response would lay out again WHY there was opposition. I.e. performance, methods, etc.
3) "They hate the Republican party and just want to destroy it."

And it continues that way in every race where the Republican candidate has engaged in or benefitted from poor standards of behavior.

At each step these people (partisans) are no different from partisans (like Mike McIntee) who are on the other side of the aisle. They all wish to silence dissent. They all wish to engage in personal attacks rather than address the ideas and issues (and in the case of Bachmann supporters they refuse to address the issue of ethical concerns).

Now why do I bring this up?

Because this is a gambit you will continue to see this election year. Typically it is from the DFL more predominately than the GOP. This year it will be from the GOP more than the DFL.

Governor's race
Andy pretended to be a true fiscal conservative. In November he laid out the very reasons why Pawlenty was, well, not holding to the fiscal conservative base.

My takeaway from listening to the Governor? That Minnesota conservatives will be disappointed with the upcoming legislative session.

Then when someone was going to challenge Pawlenty Andy started personally attacking the person. Here is the original link which oddly enough is now a dead link. Talk about covering one's tracks! At least I quoted some of the post here.

Andy is a clairvoyant...he knows people's TRUE intentions better than they know their own. See, he posted the results of his power. (Again, a mysteriously dead link now). There he said what Jeffers falsely claimed to be her motivation:

The person is very upset with Pawlenty’s recent policy decisions, and has decided to challenge him for his job.

Then he helps us with his super powers.

This is a general election foe. Another name on the ballot. I have already heard some of the campaign message a few months back, and it will be even less flattering to Pawlenty than anything the DFL could come up with. Every vote drawn from Pawlenty might just as well be for a DFLer. Which may be this person’s plan, as they have not yet gotten over the last legislative session. This person has no interest in winning. They want blood.

Yes, see, this is how the GOP will operate. True complaints about performance or issues are not real, they can't exist for any reason but to help the DFL.

It happens with every race where a Partisan has a horse. Opposition is not allowed and to speak of the opposition in anything than an attack is displaying hatred towards their candidate.

Andy, please use your superpowers and tell us why the rest of us may not support Pawlenty? I mean, I personally have posted often but it seems I do not know my motivation.

NEWSFLASH
This offer being made to Andy:

Why don’t you author my blog since you seem to be so adept at doing my thinking for me. You seem to know better than I what I “really cared” about and you seem to have the inside track on my motivations (”trying to get more points scored as being anti-GOP leadership”) and you seem to know better the I do about what I know (”you have no clue how the party works”).

His response...none. But he has taken to deleting the comments that called him to task for his positions AND his ad hominem attacks.

********** UPDATE **********
Fear not. I have been able to recover some of my deleted comments.
Comment #1

May 1st, 2006 at 10:44 am

Andy,
Facts would help you out here.

1) Yes, I left the party. Why? Because of the intellectual inconsistency that runs rampant with the party.
2) No, I have not pledged to make certain the incumbants win. The challengers get the benefit of the doubt with me to start a race. I support strongly my State House rep. I support the Auditor. What incumbants am I against? Governor, yes, and why? Because he has gone against much of his campaign platform to become less than the fiscal conservative he ran on. There is a platform out there that is more fiscally conservative. I have a positive outlook towards people which means that I assume they will hold to their promises. That being said we have Jeffers’ platform vs Pawlenty’s performance. Yep, he did great the 1st 2 years. But his last 2 years suck. Sorry, he has proven to be unable to hold a fiscal conservative platform. NEXT. Other incumbants I am against: My State Senator who is planning to vote for the Twins stadium and is NOT a fiscal conservative. Sec of State: provides poor service and is turning an office I believe should be devoid of partisan politics into one of pure partisanship. Who else? By my count that is 2 of 5 incumbants I support. Not bad considering how much I dislike typical politicians. Oh, if you want to count 2004 Pres, I supported Bush for one reason (foreign policy) which at the time outweighed his poorest positions (domestic policy). So that is 3 of 6.
3) I’m not AGAINST a party for the sake of being against the Party. Thanks for playing America’s favorite game, “Misread, misquote and miss the point.” Yep, I left the GOP. I explained clearly why. It has more to do with the delegates and members than the elected officials. I think the intellectual dishonesty from the GOP leaves them as vulnerable to fair and objective attacks as the DFL. Sorry, that is how it goes when one sacrifices their principles for the sake of winning.
4) I don’t hate Republicans. I hate the Republicans’ (and all parties for that matter) hypocrisy. Notice that you have yet to address what happened to the “Character Matters” mantra that the GOP uses to oppose evertying that Clinton said in 1996 all the way through the present. That is the equivalent of, well, speaking out of both sides of the mouth because when the tables get turned (Bachmann, DeLay, Libby) the GOP does exactly what they criticize the Dems of: circling the wagons. “Character Matters” is a line for political expediency and nothing more within the party. I hate that dishonesty. Are all Republicans dishonest? No. Just like not all Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitution Party, are not either. Is the party line dishonest. Yep, just like the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitution…etc. I actually bought the line during the 1990s. I realized over the past 4 or 5 years that it is just a line anymore. A few Republicans actually are closer to my beliefs than any other party…most just claim to be until it affects them. But I don’t hate the Republicans. I’ll tell you what, next time I want to know what I think and believe I will ask you, though, since you seem to be the expert on what I think.
5) “Anything less than Pawlenty’s head on a stick”–No, what would be best is Pawlenty to be a fiscal conservative this session. Time’s running out for that one and I’m not going to buy his BS during the campaign this time around. I would rather he came back to the good side of fiscal responsibility…and not be one of the rumored considerations for 2008 VP. I am first to admit that his 1st 2 years were great and I long for THAT Pawlenty to return before the election. In lieu of that, I’m looking for someone else that may be a fiscal conservative.
6) “She was first approached by the local GOP to take on Chaudry in the State Senate”–yeah, I sense you have no problem with the GOP picking and choosing who will run for what office and who will not run against whom in other offices. I find that is along the lines of “Kingmaking”. And no wonder you like it…it is the sole reason that Kennedy has been treated as the only candidate for over a year now. It is nice to prevent competition, isn’t it, at least when it is your horse that get the help. I noticed that you have not yet answered my question on why not pick one GOP candidate for the 6th last year (like the Senate race) be chase everyone else away? Then all the money could have been used against the DFL. Why the inconsistency?

Get a grip, buddy. I have been incredibly honest with my readers. Explain how I have not, please. I have laid out very clearly the reasons I think the Kennedy campaign has been playing below board (you have obviously chosen to ignore that I have answered every single question of yours on this…and I refuse to re-answer them. Go find the answers if you HONESTLY want your questions answered. I think this is just a rouse to act like what you say is fact.) I have explained very clearly why I support or don’t support various candidates.

I think what is the most telling thing is that even liberals with whom I disagree vehemently on policies are actually understanding my complaints. They address them when the complaint is directed at them. On the flip side the GOP engages in personal attacks (e.g. you against Jeffers), ignore the answers to their questions, distort the truth and (intentionally?) misquote or miss the point of complaints against them.

So, attack me personally, make up crap (”You are being dishonest with people. You are making allegations that cannot be proven.”)–I expect that from partisans who care more about winning than anything else. THAT is the mentality that now permeates the GOP delegates and THAT is the reason I left the party. THAT is the reason other friends of mine (in radio broadcasting) have also left the party in recent months.

Why are you so afraid of opposition? Did you or did you not try to talk Jeffers out of even running as a Republican against Pawlenty? Then she runs instead as a Libertarian and THAT becomes the SOLE reason for your opposition. Why are you so afraid of her? What is your opposition to her…aside from being a non-Republican? I mean, that is literally the ONLY reason that has been articulated.

Comment #2 responding to his continued lies

May 1st, 2006 at 10:53 am

Andy,
What false allegations have I made?

Just because you don’t like what I’m saying does not make it false.

You know what cracks me up in this. You whine that people won’t let you talk about you candidate…but I have not heard you talk about your candidate. Why is Pawlenty better than Jeffers? But then when someone (me for example) voices displeasure you piss that they require permission.

Don’t put words in my mouth Andy. You have 0% of your efforts in this matter correct. And I will tell you what I told Mike McIntee: I fight fire with fire…so if you don’t want that battle then don’t vomit the fire first. If you wish to continue blatantly misrepresenting and creating what I believe, want, think, say, etc. I will do the same playing by the standard that YOU set forth. So knock it off or get ready for a wild ride.

I have answered every one of your BS claims that I’m making false allegations. Go back and read those answers, or at least stop perpetuating the lie that they are (a) false allegations and (b) unanswered questions.

Think before you respond…I do not appreciate your continued speaking on my behalf especially after I have addressed your fabrications. I will engage in the same manner from here on out with you as you have been with me if you continue this crap.

Comment #3

May 1st, 2006 at 11:08 am

So, Andy, what is it going to be. A civil discussion on differences (and articulating those differences instead of labels) or a flame war where we speak for each other while ignoring when each speaks for ourselves?

You decide. It is all up to you.

Retract the places where you put words in my mouth here? We can continue on civil in nature.
Or
Just move forward in a civil manner and ignore the crap up to this moment.
Or
Continue telling what each other thinks, feels, wants, says, believe?

I’m more than capable of playing under any of those standards…and the first scorching podcast will go online tonight as my return salvo

Andy's response...a 4th option I should have expected. Falls in line with a typical Partisan's way of dealing with opposition.

May 1st, 2006 at 11:23 am

I have deleted some comments because they had nothing to do with the topic of this post.

My blog. My rules.

Don’t like it, go start your own blog and tear me to shreads, I don’t care.

********** UPDATE **********
The latest from Andy:

THIS post on MY blog is about why I like Krinkie, not why TONY doesn’t like the GOP. We were way off topic. Period.

I just put them into moderation. As soon as I get time from my busy schedule of kingmaking, I will try to address your complaints.

But as you are not one of my constituents, I feel I need to address their needs first by helping get Republicans elected. Sorry.

Andy, no need to be sorry. It has been very evident for a long time that you (a) try to disallow dissent and (b) hold numerous double standards. I still do not understand why you get bent out of shape when people call a spade a spade: You are a Party over Principles person. No shame in that...you would rather fight to "get Republicans elected" than actually stand up for your principles. I would rather not be led by a letter behind a person's name which tells you nothing about that person's character, positions, performance, platform, etc.

You are right, it is your blog. I am sorry I lost sight of the fact that it is not acceptable to question you in any manner on your blog. All hail Andy...he shall not be questioned on his blog or he will delete the questioning.

Oh, Andy, since you are adverse against having opinions and interpretations opposing your own being presented on your blog without you engaging in flaming the person I will address it here. The entire discussion was somewhat germane to your post. Your post was about "I love Krinkie cuz he's a fiscal conservative"--that inconsistency in your candidate support was questioned (From Mary: "I’m confused. Andy, for someone who is SO adament about pointing out the fact that Phil Krinkie is THE Fiscal Conservative in the 6th District race…. you abandon that rationale when it comes to the gubernatorial race?") to which the effort to relieve the confusion was made ("Gee Mary, what proof do you have that jeffers is a fiscal conservative? Where is her record? I remember talking to her on the phone, and one of her big points was that she wanted to reach across the isle and work with both Dems and GOPers.

Krinkie has a record of being a fiscal conservative, where is Jeffer’s?"). See, Andy, you absolutely missed the point. Your support of Krinkie was not being questioned. What was being questioned was your absence of the same values being applied to the gubernatorial race. Your response: "Democrats only spend money." How shallow is that? From your own posts (which are mysteriously not available anymore) you put Pawlenty in the free-spending category, which means that he must be...a Democrat.

The fact is you have one value that supercedes all others: Republicans. You honestly cannot see that Republicans are not all good and Democrats are not all bad. Sorry, it seems to me that there are more Democrats than Republicans opposing the stadium.

The next comments were explaining to Mary that she will be frustrated in getting any consistant response from you or any other partisan on almost any campaign related matter. I offered to her examples supporting claim. You then decided to lie and say that all of the claims were unsubtatiated and without proof. Absolutely not true...I have provided substatiation in private correspondance, on this blog and on the air. The fact that you choose for your own obtuse reasons to ignore the substatiation does not render the facts into your favor. Period.

I hate to say it but you and Mike McIntee are of the same cloth, just different parties.