Bad analogy works so well...and don't insult me like that--posted by Tony Garcia on 7/11/2006
I know it seems like I keep going after the GOP. The truth is that Pawlenty gave lots of fodder, the party gave lots of fodder and the apologists keep adding more manure for logic to the pile.
My previous post had the following comment as a response:
To a True Believer, who's the greater traitor - the unbeliever, or the Believer who strays?Let us look at the analogy. I have not changed my positions or my philosophy. I have not changed my screening process for working for, donating money to or voting for a candidate. I have not changed anything from this time last year or the year before or the year before or the year before (most of those preceding this blog, but not preceding the work on campaigns and in my BPOU and as a candidate). I take that back. I changed one thing: my party affiliation. Actually it changed on me first. I was a member of the "character matters in candidates" Republican Party. It quickly became the "Only Republican incumbents matter" Republican Party...so I left it. That is all that changed.
You guys need to get over it. You both believe the same things. One of you sticks to raw principle on pain of death. The other will bend, in order to get something more than nothing.
You both really do want the same things, and value the same values. So, this fight is just . . . inefficient. (Sorry - as a Randian, that was the cruelest thing I could think of to say.)
So for the above analogy to work it can only be referring to "party hackery" as "believer". Therefore it will read something like this (in order to be applicable to my disgust at specific Party over Principle people...at specific sell-outs: To a True Partisan Hack, who's the greater traitor - the non-Party member, or the Party member who won't sell out?
As terrible as the second analogy is that actually applies to the apologists of Pawlenty and the GOP leadership. It applies perfectly to the mentality displayed by many of the Party over Principle Republicans. And it is for that reason those obtuse people continue their hate-laced rhetoric against conservatives who want real conservatives.
They are fine with getting less than what they were promised. They are fine with being the latex-sex doll for the politicians who count on their blind support. "Tell those idiots one thing in the campaign, do something else and then shake their hands while telling them why I'm the candidate I campaigned as not the person I made a record as. They will bend over for it every time and never ask for lubrication."
That is what you are taking when you imply that Pawlenty is as good as it gets. That is the same broken-down and empty, defeatist pile of dung that was uttered during Arne Carlson's tenure.
The second part of that comment though is what really got under my skin. I know the commenter was writing with good intentions, but it was the most insulting thing I have had uttered to me in quite a long time...to the point where I am considering moderating comments.
He claimed that Andy "sell out" Aplikowski and I have the same goals.
Nope. You are way off base. Andy wants Repbulicans elected regardless of their platforms, performance or principles. I want fiscal conservatives with principles. Past performance would be great but in the field that is out there NONE have a performance worhty of running on. I will not "settle" like the guy who settles on marrying a "butter face" simply because he is tired of being a bachelor.
Andy & I do NOT want the same thing. If we did he would not have been a spineless jerk about a candidate whose platform was more fiscally conservative than Pawlenty. That proved to me that he and his kind claim to have principles but really only have their self-worth invested in "party". I will go to my grave believing that if Jesus ran as a Democrat and Satan ran as a Republican Andy would still say, "vote Republican or you're a traitor...and allow me to get on my cross of self-pity when you respond."
But it is not just Andy who is broken. He is just the higher profile epitome of the problem...higher profile because he co-authors KvM. There are many out there who think that to criticize any incumbent GOP is to be borne of Hell directly and out to kill America.
The truth is that it is their choice to have only the principle of Party, Party, Party. I have come to realize that advancing your own banner through the party and advancing the party's banner for your own are mutually exclusive goals. I have posed some questions (interestingly left unanswered by the very crowd that otherwise addresses my criticisms by offering irrelevant barbs) while laying out WHY these goals are not congruant.
Every election is dubbed "the most important one". This year's is no exception. So with each election being "the most important one" it is therefore justifiable sacrificing one's principles for the sake of the party...taking one for the team. When do you get your payoff?
I already recently wrote extensively refuting the absent-minded thought process of putting the Party ahead of one's principles...go read it now, please.
If I had a quarter everytime a "conservative" uttered "Pawlenty is as good as we can get"...I would not have to work anymore.
There are many reasons why you should abandon this "logic". Three of them I will discuss now.
This line of thinking is very similar in spirit to what Jimmy Carter was telling the nation in his term. 'The best has come, better cannot be achieved. Buck up and accept the reality and get to work for this status quo.' It is defeatist. It is lacking self-confidence. Worse, it is embracing a lie. Pawlenty is only a stepping stone to better. The true wisdom is realizing when his time is over. Based on his performance over the past 2 years his time as "the best fiscal conservative" is over.
Would you accept from your kids the excuse for their 1.0 GPA, "this is the best I can do, learn to accept it"? I would not. If you got a D this term you can step it up NOW and get a C next term. Always strive for better. Complacency is the first step to defeat...and a much deserved defeat at that if one loses because of complacency.
The truly sad part is not that Pawlenty's time as the best fiscal conservative is actually over. It is that so many KNOW this to be true but do not have the honesty outwardly to admit it. (Or in the case of Andy he admits it and then deletes the admission only to act like it is not true.) This is easily demonstrated not in the rejection via voting of a more fiscal conservative platform (in Sue Jeffers) but in the venomous, underhanded and undemocratic manner in which she was prevented from even being allowed access in the Free Market of Ideas that the GOP embraces only while begging for money on college campuses like Welfare addicts. They know he is not the best that can be done even this year in the realm of fiscal conservativism.
Abandon this line of "logic" because it is already proven to be not true. It is the same thing that I heard from only the moderate Republicans during Arne Carlson's tenure. They did not want to risk losing power. Power is a terribly corrupting thing and risking it for one's principles is difficult. Presently only the fiscally moderate
Arne was not as good as it got. T-Paw is not as good as it gets. Better can be had this year, but only if you actually want it.
There is no reward in adopting "as good as it gets". As a true fiscal conservative you lost big with Pawlenty these past 2 years. Health Impact Fee. Public Financing of TWO stadiums. Pawlenty PROPOSED $1 billion in spending this year...an INCREASE of government. Proposing the socialization of college for 1 out of 4 Minnesota students. The list goes on and on.
By accepting he is "as good as it gets" you are accepting the abandonment of YOUR desires. Notice with Pawlenty, as with 100% of elected officials, that he is sliding further away from the base he initially ran for. He said one thing and delivered something different. There is only one thing to do. Find better. And there is ALWAYS a better candidate. Maybe not this year, but you cannot reward bad behavior. That is just like rewarding the Welfare mother who gets pregnant again with an increase in her Welfare checks.
Some people are saying that we cannot afford to lose THIS election. Actually, no single election is THAT important. I mean, remember the reason both sides thought 1988 was SOOOO IMPORTANT? Because of the Supreme Court. (Some said the Cold War but those who paid attention as well as even the MOB does now knew that the Cold War was near over...the only question was when.) If the GOP had just sacrificed 1988 to find a REAL candidate what would have been lost then? Well, Souter would not be on the Court now (boy, the Right really won in 1988). "Read my lips" would never have been proven to be another lie from another politician (boy, the Right really won in 1988).
The point is the reality in politics is you must take a few steps forward, one backward to regroup before taking a few more forward. You had to have Carter in 1976 to get Reagan. We got 8 years of return on investment for that. We had to have Ventura in Minnesota in 1998 for Pawlenty. We got 2 year ROI for that. Find a real candidate or step back and regroup. Taking a step back, losing an election once in a while is not the end of the world, not the end of the USA and not the end of the state. If you think this year is different then perhaps we need to have Fox Mulder talk to you about his sister as well, because you are not living in reality.
The 1994 GOP Revolution did not occur because the GOP settled in 1992. It occurred because they ended up taking a step back in 1992. They lost 2 years and won Congress as a result.
But why is it necessary to take so many steps back so frequently?
Because the 99% of the GOP loses its spine upon being sent to higher office. They promise and don't perform. They have to take a step back, get better candidates and then move forward. They have to purge the complacent incumbents. Whether you want to admit it or not the incumbents the GOP has need to be purged. If Pawlenty had performed as well in the past 2 years as he did his first 2 this conversation would not be occurring. If Jesse had performed his last 3 years as well as his campaign and first year...he would have done a miracle for the pubic's confidence in politicians. Instead both have failed after a while. Both need to be replaced. Their moral compass had Eveready instead of Energizer and they need to be tossed.
It is not because of the "R" that I want them out. It is because of their performance. Those of you reading this and who still think that Pawlenty is "as good as we can do" deserve exactly what you get in 2008...which will be an ass-whipping not seen in many, many years in Minnesota.
It is not because of the "R" behind their name that I go after them. It is because people circle their wagons to shield any politician with an "R". Circled wagons are never done for those that don't deserve some jabs. Your fidelity to the "R" is counter to any philosophy. If you call yourself "conservative" then you need to hold the "R" to conservative principle or replace them with conservatives. Anything otherwise is simply abandoning a conservative principle for the "R".
If you are truly a fiscal conservative,
If you are truly a small government conservative,
If you are truly for state's rights,
If you are truly for local control over state control over federal control
then you MUST reject Pawlenty now and find a candidate NOW that is for those philosophies. And if your candidate loses, then so be it.
You would not settle for a contracter that does a half-assed job to build your house under the idea that you need to have the house started and completed NOW. You find the best and if it takes a little longer living in a shanty then so be it because in the long run you will have a better house built by a better builder.
Pawlenty is that half-assed contractor (half-assed fiscal conservative). I would rather not live in the broken house. You deserve better, too.
I am informing you now...because of the same inept talking points defending Pawlenty, the apologists, or the Party over Principle crowd I have turned OFF comments on this post. Why? I have no desire to continue allowing a platform for the same empty and insipid responses that fail to address these questions while telling me I should sacrifice fiscal conservative principles for Pawlenty. You have said the same tired talking points (like lemmings) while avoiding actually addressing the real issue so allowing those to be redone again is a waste of the time of my readers.
Instead go back to those previous, empty comments of yours and answer the following questions.
1) When is it not "the most important election"
2) When will the fiscal conservatives 'get their return' if they sell out/settle for Pawlenty again?
As a bonus, defend individually to a fiscal conservative Pawlenty's (a) Health Impact Fee, (b) $1 billion bonding proposal, (c) signing Northstar rail spending, (d) signing the Transportation Constitutional Amendment, (e) breaking MN DoT, (f) preventing Hennepin County residents from voting on their own tax increase as state law dictates.
Good luck. I'm not holding my breath as the very people I'm addressing are, I'm beginning to believe, mentaly unable to actually address directly criticism...right Andy (or some of you kids who have graduated from local college campuses recently). I'm sick of them missing the point and engaging on personal attacks while failing to explain their positions and address the actual concerns in the posts.