/* ------------------- 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 ------------------- */

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

The broken partisan mentality...ode to Andy

--posted by Tony Garcia on 7/11/2006

Recently King Banaian put out an open invite to guest blog on his well-read blog. I replied but let him know that I was going to give him a reason to deny even considering my reply. There are many within the "conservative" ranks and the Republican pary who are blinded by their lemming-like fealty to any Republican candidate. These people cannot address criticisms they only know how to attack the critic. These people make incredibly insipid connections and baseless conclusions. They are drones and regardless of their educational background or pedigree they are mindless.

I actually had the audacity to call various GOP officeholders to the carpet. Kiffmeyer for her turning her office into a partisan centerpiece; Pawlenty for failing on the fiscal conservative, smaller government front; Bachmann for her character; Kennedy and Bachmann (and their supporters) for the intense disrespect for other candidates within the party and their supporters. I think that is, in all honesty, the full list. I have not publicly gone after my State Senator but his Democrat opponent does not have to work hard to be more fiscally conservative than the GOP incumbent...and will get my vote if that holds true.

That last sentence...oh my God...that just proves that Tony [insert list of ignorant statements from the mindless partisans]. Here is a small sampling:
1) is a liberal
2) is a Democrat in disguise
3) hates Republicans
4) has gone off the deep end

In reality what these people fail to realize is it is possible their allegances are suspect. Why would a fiscal conservative be behind Pawlenty after this session? There is no rational reason beyond putting their principles behind the party...a proposition that will not yield much for them.

What they really miss is they produce the same baseless hatred they claim comes from their opposition. To oppose them is to hate them...and is it not ironic that they claimed the same line of opposition was wrong, un-American and dangerous.

Remember that these "principled" people claimed that the "anyone but Bush" mantra in 2004 was both dangerous and uninformed. Hold that thought for a moment...it will be important shortly.

Now back to King. I recently guest hosted KNSI's morning show. During that show I invited King on to talk about some economics stuff. During one of the breaks I explained what the danger could be if he even acknowledged he was considering me to guest blog. I listed a few names but there are many in the list of these empty-headed partisans. BTW, this is not all of the Party over Principle crowd...just the ones who, frankly, are too stupid to understand that people on the same side can disagree. In fact, that is the very premise of our radio show! These people also think that only they are allowed to show passion for their beliefs. Otherwise you are a traitor to the cause. (How blissfully arrogant while absolutely ignorant of reality!)

King went forward with adding my name to the list under consideration. In fact he opened up a poll to help select which one(s) will be guest blogging during his vacation.

And predictably one of the mindless partisans began to chime in. Remember the aforementioned "anyone but Bush" mantra that the Right said was wreckless and only for the unintelligent? Let me quote Andy Aplikowski's comment regarding the poll. "Is there any way to an "anyone but Tony" answer added?" Ah, the world of the mindless partisan...allows them to be hypocrites and not know it or care about it.

And to respond to that comment I have two things to say to Andy.

One: Judging from the vote tallies as of this minute you obviously are not bright enough to figure out how to register an "anyone but Tony" vote.

Two: After whining on your blog about a whole host of personal crap someone commented, "You [sic] kind of a hateful little man. Again, too bad for you but, Karma is a bitch."

You, Andy, obviously did not like the answer because you so eloquently retorted...in a manner that your readers should expect. You were so principled. You did give out his e-mail address which your website says, "Mail (will not be published) (required)". Classy. And this is the same Andy who freaked out because I quoted ONE WORD out of an e-mail from him...without even naming him. His issue...the breech of privacy.

Flip flop, Andy? Or a double standard? The e-mail will not be published or will it?

A few came weakly to your defense...basically it was a low blow, but none denied that if one believed in Karma you have created quite the negative vibe in your constant quest to lie about people. (I still can't figure out if you lie intentionally and are that hateful or if you lie by accident because you really don't know better.)

Anyway, as people make their predictions for the elections remember another factor. It is people like this that are the face of the GOP. It is rhetoric like Residual Forces or Pair 'o Dice or some of the rather insignificant in all regards sites who are the representatives of the GOP both in the internet and in the public. (Well, maybe not so much in public...most of them are too yellow to defend their positions in any manner.) They are the ones who are going to be helping the non-hacks (the undecideds, too-busy-to-pay-much-attention-except-in-late-October, the moderates, the disillusioned Left & Right) decide what to do in November.

There is a reason United08.com is gaining a lot of traction...it is people like Andy driving the rational ones away from either party. There is a reason that the #3 talk show host in the nation has in the past month begun calling for (and many, many, many listeners agree) an abandonment of the two parties. Because of people like Andy, who throw bricks at glass houses from their own glass house. Because they bemoan behaviors as "un-American" and "hate mongering" and "unhealthy" while doing the exact same thing day in and day out all while selling their own actual personal principles out.

Andy's tactics are also a reflection of his other blogs...namely the Kennedy v the Machine. Each time his intolerant and hate spewing words flash across the screen it is a reflection of KvM AND Kennedy supporters/surrogates.

There is a reason the majority of the country is just fed up with you "party insiders". Because you have very little credibility...almost as little as 99.9% of elected officials. People rip CEOs because of a small handful of corrupt, lying miscreants. It is the parties and the politicians, however, that have a much higher percentage of their ranks full of hypocritical, lying, hateful evildoers.

I hate partisan hacks.

********** UPDATE **********
Upon further reflection I realized there is another level to Andy's ability (or lack thereof) to hold to his principles. There is also another effect that Andy's choice of discourse has on his own goals. Both of these have been inserted in text above with underline.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger bobby_b said...

To a True Believer, who's the greater traitor - the unbeliever, or the Believer who strays?

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.)

July 11, 2006  
Blogger Kevin from Minneapolis said...

Again you put the perfect in the way of the good, I'll focus on the governor. Have you looked at how state government spending has slowed during his term? It's remarkable.

To say that Tim Pawlenty is not fiscally conservative makes me think you have your head in some alternate universe. If you want to continue clinging to some pie-in-the-sky ideas that have aboslutely zero chance of ever becoming reality that's your problem. The rest of us will work on what's possible, which is pulling things as much in our direction as possible.

July 11, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Party Opposite,
What is funny about what you are writing is I heard the same things being uttered during Arne's tenure. The bottom line is that he INCREASED spending in his own proposals, provided LESS for roads than he campaigned on, PITCHED FOR and SIGNED government subsidies of stadiums, SIGNED the removal of local citizens voting on their own tax hikes...

And then insulted the intelligence of the state by playing the "health impact fee is not a tax" game.

In the field for Governor's he is NOT the most fiscally conservative, yet the GOP loyalists (those who put the party above thier principles) continue to parade around the blatant lie that he is.

Fool yourself that Pawlenty is as good as it gets. Fool the lemmings in your party who are willing to support a smaller-than-Democrats candidate. The reality is that better can be had and it can be had this year.

I was going to respond here but think it will be too long for the comments. I'm going to post a resopnse instead.

July 11, 2006  
Blogger bobby_b said...

Well, c'mon, you invite a response and then turn off the comment? No fair.

First, I intended no insult to you, and I'm honestly amazed that you perceived an insult in what I said.

Second, all the rest . . . "First" was most important . . .

I'm a fairly hard-core fiscal and economic conservative. I don't want our state government to stop growing. I want it to shrink. Does "Randian" mean nothing to you?

I'm not "fresh out of college." (Couldn't tell if you meant me in that or not.) I could throw a large, heavy rock, against the wind, with my left arm, and still hit fifty. It's that close.

You seem to have taken my "TP's better than nothing" theme as a quality control issue. Either I'm not really a conservative, or I'm just too damn lazy and unprincipled to insist on the Real Thing - that "TP's as good as we're gonna get" means that I think he's the cat's pajamas, and there are no better conservatives out there.

Here's (hopefully) a better explanation of what I meant:

If I walk into an auction full of stuff, against one person, and we both have $128, I'm not likely going to get everything being auctioned. I'm going to have to make some choices, and give up some of the stuff I want to buy, so that I can buy other things I want.

Not getting everything I want in such a situation isn't a measure of my laziness, or lack of true devotion to all of the things. It's merely recognition that, when one doesn't hold all of the money, other people get to bid, too.

Now, if I can walk out with more than half of the value in the room, I've done well. That means that I have somehow used my equal bargaining power to extract more-than-equal results.

Here in Minnesota, I can think of quite a few people I would rather see as governor than TP. But then, I'm way out at one end of the political continuum, and I don't have all of the votes in my pocket.

So, I try to walk out with as much value in the bidding as I can get. Given that I'm up against a whole pile of voters who think government should get so big it needs one of my spare bedrooms just to store extra state employees, all of whom are also bidding in the same auction as I am to fill that same office with their own version of The Ultimate Governor, I KNOW I'm not going to get everything on the auction floor. In fact, I'm going to count it as a good day if I can come home with more than half of what's there.

I did. I got TP. Noway, nohow could I have afforded the top-of-the-line BEST CONSERVATIVE - other people - LIBRUL people! - were bidding, too - but, damn, I brought home a pretty good value for someone with only half of the bucks in the room.

I suppose I could have insisted on only bidding on the entire package of stuff on the auction floor - all or nothing - but, if you've ever been to an auction, you know what you come home with then.

Bupkis. (Or, translated, A DFL Governor.)

I value what you value. I just don't have the votes to bring it all home, and I don't think you do, either. And, until you can swing a big hunk of those wavering-in-the-middle undeclared folks - the ones who hesitated and then voted for TP even though he was "so conservative" - into voting for someone even further out in our direction on the political continuum, I question the value of "sticking to your guns" in the manner you demand. You're not going to pull the party - the mass-produced, one-of-only-two-majors-and-everyone-else-is-a-Nader-sissy party - into a more conservative path, unless you can also pull lots of very liberal (to you and I) voters along with you.

We're a 50/50 state. It's not a question of who tries harder, or who holds True Thought - it's a numbers issue. There's no moral right or wrong in an auction bidding strategy.

If anyone should be insulted here, it's the people who think that you can't rule unless you can get elected - the ones whom you have accused of being less committed to conservative principles than you.

(If you really, truly didn't want me to respond, I apologize. But, I felt sufficiently libeled to justify the intrusion.)

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Nordeaster said...

You are so misguided on this.

The more accurate statement would be someone like Andy or myself are putting principle over ideology or idealism. The party opposite said it well, "you are putting the perfect in the way of the good."

People like party opposite, Andy or myself are being very principled. We are going to support the most conservative governor this state has had in my 42 year lifetime because that is our best chance of getting more conservativism in place.

Our principle is to actually get results, to make a difference. It has absolutely nothing to do with being loyal to a party it has to do with accomplishment.

And how is it that your arbitrary definition of conservative is the line that defines principled or unprincipled?

Jeffers and Pawlenty are far more similar than they are different on the conserative-liberal continuum. In fact we really don't know how conservative Jeffers will be once she has to deal with a split legislature.

I can just as easily say you are not holding to conservative principles for supporting Jeffers.

Would Jeffers go on record to call for the repeal of income taxes? Or to halt public funding of education? A halt to government supported medical research? Will you? A real conservative would.

Until then, don't talk to me about principle. Both candidates are a compromise to conservative principles.

However, both are better than the DFL alternative. The only real difference is that only one has any realistic shot of winning.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Nordeaster said...


Your second post went up while I was posting. Well said and a good example.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Nordeaster said...

On the Right, but Horribly Wrong (on this issue) said...

"I am informing you now...because of the same inept talking points defending Pawlenty..."

What? As opposed to your same old talking points attacking his supporters?

"...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..."

Actually, I've seen several addresses to these questions that fall continually on deaf ears. By the way, in not one of those posts has someone put Party over principle. They merely see a different way to achieve those same principles.

"You have said the same tired talking points..."

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle

I will add this. You seem convinced that there will be some sort of sudden groundswell of conservativism after 4 years of a DFL governor (and possibly both houses?) How can you be so sure of that?

I don't even think we are a 50-50 state we are a 45-55 to 47-53 state favoring the DFL. If the dems put up anybody competent for president, Bush (hardly a hardcore conservative) would have lost by a half dozen points. The main reason we have been able to have the success we've enjoyed is because Pawlenty and Coleman are not extremely conservative and more importantly are very charismatic. They may be middle of the road policy-wise, but they are GREAT candidates. That part isn't easy to duplicate.

Also, yes each election loss does make it harder to win the next. A DFL sweep means more liberal judges filling vacancies, looser election id requirements, more money flowing to the teacher unions, state workers unions and trial lawyers that fund the DFL, and even the potential of re-districting more to their favor.

True, Carter's win made Reagan possible (in fact, Jimmy Carter is the single biggest reason I'm a conservative today). But, as bad as Hatch might be, I don't think we can count on him being that inept. And more importantly, I certainly don't see a Reagan waiting in the wings as he was in '76.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Nordeaster said...

A final note. Geez, I feel like Columbo here.

What it took to get Reagan in was an opposition party member so incompetent that he did permanent damage to this this country.

The reason for the 1994 revolution was in large part because even then Clinton was seen as untrustworthy and people felt more comfortable with a check and balance in place against him.

If what it takes to get a more conservative governor in place is to let someone get elected who can't be trusted, who will damage Minnesota's economy, cause people to lose jobs, take more taxes from working families and in general make this a worse place to live, then no, I can't accept that.

I guess you could say I'm too principled to allow that just for the sake of "my guy" from my "party of conservative enough" possibly getting in in the future.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Kevin from Minneapolis said...

Why don't you tell us how sticking to your principles will win us enough votes be able to apply those to government?

Only 1/3 of the population shares your beliefs. You keep bashing party loyalists for being unable to comprehend anything, why don't you tell them how to win an election expressing values 2/3 of the voting population disagrees with.

Because...brace yourself here...if you don't win enough elections you're principles don't really mean much.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Before I finish reading your comment...
I was not referring to you. I actually figured you would be able to answer my questions.

In fact, the 3 who have I answered I owe an apology to.

I count on the 3 of you as able and capable of responding. In my state of mind last night as I wrote that I was actually more focused on one of the recent college graduate words elsewhere and you 3 (and your rationality) slipped my mind.

My deepest and humblest apologies to you, nordeaster and party opposite.

Now I will read what you 3 have written.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Yes, I have been repeating my same positions, Columbo. ;) I admit, Kettle Columbo, I am Mr. Pot.

The reason is I ask questions, get the same non-answers and feel compelled to reply to the non-answers.

We are getting nowhere on this.

So, I will not address the same issues. I will restate the questions I feel are unanswered.

1) Fiscal conservatives compromised for the "more electable" Pawlenty. (Yeah, after about 400 ballots we compromised, but we did compromise.) We got 2 years of fiscal conservative and 2 years undoing that. We made a step from Arne to Tim. Question: If you keep settling on Tim now when do we move forward? In other words, those of us who are fiscal conservatives, being asked to sacrifice for the other parts of the platform that need to be advanced, when do we get our 4 years?

You are right, we don't know how Jeffers would respond to a split legislature. Partially we don't know that because she was shut out of the GOP process (and btw before the state convention we had Jeffers on our show and said at THAT time she is and has been a member of the GOP...she just was not willing to ignore potential non-GOP supporters). On the other hand we know that Pawlenty caves when faced with a split legislature. Worse, we know that his proposals are increases in government spending. So it is specious at best to say "[I am] not holding to conservative principles for supporting Jeffers." We know Pawlenty folds like a cheap suit it is time to take the next step. Question: Why deny other candidates the forum, the access...especially when it is HIGHLY probable this might be the Reagan in the wings?

Will Hatch (or a Dem Congress) ruin the country? No, in all honesty, no. Not in 4 years they can't...with one caveat. If the GOP as a minority shows the same ineptitude they have shown as a majority then we as conservative deserve what representation we have even in the minority.

Will they destroy the state/country? Look how long it took to ruin the greatness after WWII...40 years. I'm not saying we need a 40 year absence. Our system is too strong to be destroyed like that in 4 years.

But think about this. On the one hand you say "our opposition this year will destroy our state/country if we don't win every single election cycle" and then on the other hand state that 1980 happened only because of "an opposition party member so incompetent that he did permanent damage to this this [sic] country". Which is it? Will Hatch and crew be that dangerous or not? Because, if not then we can sacrifice an election cycle to make the next step (from Arne to Tim to the next step). And if so, well, 2 years and a GOP revolution...maybe this time with enough spine to actually get stuff done instead of just arresting a bit the growth. Question: So which is it? Is Hatch & co. so dangerous or is he not Carter-esque, Clinton-esque dangerous?

"Because...brace yourself here...if you don't win enough elections you're principles don't really mean much." Enough elections? I'm saying it is time to throw out the Ford Taurus we have in office which we were told was a Bentley. Does it still run? Yeah, but he is not what we promised. We don't need to run the car to rust to try and trade it in. In the process we might have to scale back our driving a bit to help limit possibly wrecking the car, but soon afterwards we can trade closer to that Bentley we were promised.

Enough elections? You say this as your party concedes without even any effort whatsoever about 1/3 of the state races each election. But you are not talking about "enough elections". You are talking about every election. But in trying to win every election you sacrifice from a true fiscal conservative. That line of thinking would have endorsed George HW Bush in 1980. Thankfully we didn't have that mentality in 1980, just as we didn't have the present media in WWII. Question: Which election will you support the next step towards true fiscal conservative?

Finally, I guess I have to rehash something. "Until then, don't talk to me about principle. Both candidates are a compromise to conservative principles." I am not talking about simply supporting a compromised candidate. I'm talking about turning a blind eye from improving the product. The GOP shutting out Jeffers, for example. Pawlenty is not a fiscal conservative, he is a finger-in-the-wind fiscal conservative (which, I thought conservatives hated finger-in-the-wind types! Guess that is only when they are Democrats.)

I'm talking about the justifications used to rip non-Pawlenty supporting conservatives or used to "support" Pawlenty. The e-mail I receive is incredible. Somehow I am a liberal shill now. But it is not just me...I'm seeing this on blogs and websites around the country. I'm hearing on the ONE talk show I listen to...who finally began talking about this about a month ago.

I'm talking about the inability to show actual support for Pawlenty. Reread your comments and please answer this...where did you justify actual support of Pawlenty without referencing whatsoever the opposition? Let's recap the regular "support" for Pawlenty and please let me know how I'm supposed to "support" Pawlenty. Don't vote against something. And that is what your justifications are...they are all rooted in "as good as we can get or we will lose", "better than Hatch", etc.

It is not your support for Pawlenty. Notice that I am not talking about the social conservatives who support Pawlenty. They make a case FOR Pawlenty and do not need to invoke 'opposition' comparisons to do so. If I were a strong social conservative there would be no question...Pawlenty can be supported. But that is not my top priority. My priority is fiscal conservative...and I would say we have gotten 2 years after being promised a full term. The response...give him 4 more. Why? Why support a proven failure in that regard? He is trending downward. I sold US Air when it started down...thankfully...they were eventually delisted.

Question (last one restated): What in the past 2 years should I as a fiscal conservative and a small government conservative take to support Pawlenty...not talking about his opposition whatsoever because I want to SUPPORT someone, not simply support someone to oppose or block someone else.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger mike said...

I'm no social conservitive, but I have to ask what has Pawlenty done for social conservitives? He clearly is falling short on fiscal issues as spending continues to increase even as some of the services are cut. Nobody ran against the Governor this time around (sorry Sue Jeffers doesn't count), but wouldn't you all admit Brian Sullivan was much better for the conservitive cause? Are the Democrats or Peter Hutchinson really so much worse that your not willing to try to get what you want?

The party system only works when the parties actually strive for something, otherwise they simply become an artificial system of filtering out candidates for sometimes random reasons.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Nordeaster said...

Tony said "What in the past 2 years should I as a fiscal conservative and a small government conservative take to support Pawlenty...not talking about his opposition whatsoever".

That is the flaw in your argument. You can't look at Pawlenty or any other candidate in a vaccuum. You have to consider the electorate and the opposition. If we were a hard red state, I probably would look for a more conservative candidate.

If we were a bluer state I probably would be thrilled to support an Arne Carlson. That is not a compromise in principles, it is a recognition that only through winning election can you effect change and move your principles forward.

Same for the being less conservative with an even split in the legislature than when there was a 13 seat majority in the house. I don't expect a politician to behave the same in each situation. In order to accomplish some things that are important, you are going to have to compromise on others. That is not backing of principle if your principles tell you those things you got through because of the compromise are worth it.

As to not letting Jeffers speak at the convention. One, I'm on record on multiple blogs as supporting her speaking. Two, that is over and done and no longer relevant to the question at hand.

Another flaw to your logic is that you somehow feel it is more noble to vote for a more conserservative candidate than to vote against a less conservative one. They are simply two sides of the same coin.

Like I said, I am a conservative much more because of Jimmy Carter, the ACLU, and the New York Times, than I am because of Ronald Reagan, the Contract for America and the National Review.

As to forgoing one election in hopes of moving to a more conservative position in the future...

1. There is no guarantee that will happen.

2. It is not just a short term sacrifice for long term gain. Many of the problems we are having in the CIA and State department today are still a direct result of the policies of the Carter aministration. The same would be true if Hatch were able to Govern with a majority. Once his socialist "universal healthcare" program is in place it will be virtually impossible to take it away from the voters. Not because it is better, but because such a plan inherently creates dependency.

To not vote for Pawlenty is to vote for universal healthcare in Minnesota. As a conservative that is something I just can't allow.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

"can't look at Pawlenty or any other candidate in a vaccuum"

I framed the question to find out...what is Pawlenty good for?

If you are so willing to stand for the "R" simply because they are not "D" then what will you do in 2008 if Hilary jumps parties? (That is not rhetorical...I really want to know.)

Voting FOR someone is much different from voting AGAINST someone. What you are advocating is the same mentality as "anyone but Bush".

So I restate the question: "What in the past 2 years should I as a fiscal conservative and a small government conservative take to support Pawlenty...not talking about his opposition whatsoever"

(Taking note that of the 4 questions you ignored 3 and skirted 1.)

I mean, let's take the 6th CD as another example for me. My first criteria for a candidate is the candidate must have a better character than me. Honestly it is not a high bar. But I have witnessed (and so have many of the people now supporting Bachmann) many instances of how Bachmann is not a good person. That is my first principle and she fails that test. Now embracing your "can vote against someone" "same side of a coin" rationale that would leave me to vote for Wetterling. I have gone that road and realized the error of that as well...and it leaves me with noone in the 6th CD.

But it demonstrates that they are NOT the 2 sides of the same coin. Voting FOR and supporting someone is vastly different from voting AGAINST and opposing someone. They may have the same result...but we are not of a result oriented philosophy. That is why we also hate quotas.

So, here I am, disillusioned by the tactics and justifications of the main "conservative" party, the GOP. I am asking you for guidance and assistance. In exchange, if you are successful, I will be able to support (without internal conflict) Pawlenty.

Why should I, a fiscal conservative who has witnessed his first two years and then his most recent record, support Tim Pawlenty. I'm opposed to Hatch, so arguments against Hatch are useless. So he does not get my vote. But why does Pawlenty and Pawlenty alone deserve my vote instead of me skipping that race?

Jeffers/irrelevant: No, she is still running in the primary. More specifically the issue is the continued tactics of the GOP. If you wish to say Jeffers' treatment from the GOP is irrelevant then I think it is intellectually consistent for you to retract, "Many of the problems we are having in the CIA and State department today are still a direct result of the policies of the Carter aministration."

History is not irrelevant simply because it is not the present.

So, my questions still stand. 3 ignored and 1 "answered" by ignoring/rejecting the fundamental premise. However, the fact still remains you did not provide any reasons why Pawlenty deserves the vote of fiscal conservatives after spitting on the very promises he gave to fis-cons.

July 12, 2006  
Blogger AAARF said...


Do me a favor. Do what I told DJW to do.

You're now just as bad as him. You take some personal issues of mine and use it to insult me even more. Glad to see you are obsessed with me, but move on. You're a petty person who is now attacking me personally because you don't like my politics.

I used to think this was all an act to get attention for yourself. But now I know that you are a meanspirited person who is willing to instill pain and suffering on a person just so that you can make yourself seem like some kind of mensa freak.

I used to think we could have remained friends if we had ever had the chance to see each other again, but after this crap, forget it.

Remember thosesilly emails you sent me? There were 2 of them? In those you said you only wrote this blog for you. You wouldn't care if anyone read it, and that you don't write it for anyone but you.

Well I'm glad to see that taking advantage at one of the lowest points in my lie is on your mind so much that you devote a majority of your blog to adding further insult to an already troublesome time for me.

You want to be a man. Come down to keegans tonight and do this crap in person tough guy. Otherwise find a new person to be your fish in a barrel you coward. I know you Tony, you won't have the courage to show up, and if you do, you'll put on that big fake smile and say that "in person you're not that bad of a guy".

July 13, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Andy, if you really can't see the main point then do us both a favor...find somewhere else to hang yourself on your weekly cross.

The bottom line (as far as your personal issues) is that you (a) hold a different standard when someone offers their opinion against you, (b) someone points out how hateful you actually are and your resposne is obscenity, (c) hold a double standard (flip-flop) on respect for privacy.

I wish you had the IQ to see it, so you could make yourself better for it.

Thanks for the invite to Keegan's...you are not worth the drive. But if you are hellbent on your little testosterone flash then you know exactly where to find me each and every Sunday. I hope to see you there. Actually, I have mixed feelings...I would love to take this up in person, but I could live the rest of my life never seeing your face again.

While people offer you "their prayers" notice that not one of them came to your defense regarding your hatefulness. They can't...you have a deep and serious hateful part of you that doesn't just "leak out". It is overshadowing everything else about you.

While people offer you "their best wishes" notice that none of them are able to say anything about your entire existence being a double standard. You say one thing and do precisely another.

You bitch because someone quotes a sentence in an e-mail because of an assumed privacy protection and then post someone's e-mail address that your website blatantly says will not be made public.

Now, Andy, do us both a favor and GET OFF MY BLOG.

July 13, 2006  
Blogger Nordeaster said...

Actually, I thought I covered your questions, but let's see if I can be more direct.

Question: Why deny other candidates the forum, the access...especially when it is HIGHLY probable this might be the Reagan in the wings?

As I stated, I am on record as saying I would have liked Jeffers to get a chance to speak, in spite of the errors in judgement she made in trying to get there. I had a conversation with her to this effect and she acknowledged that {I'm paraphrasing} her emotions clouded her judgement leading her to make what in hindsight were poor choices).

So which is it? Is Hatch & co. so dangerous or is he not Carter-esque, Clinton-esque dangerous?

I think I answered that in stating that Hatch would give us "universal health care" that does make him Carter-like dangerous in that the negative effects would be huge and very hard to reverse.

Which election will you support the next step towards true fiscal conservative?

Every one as I have always done. I think we just have a differnt view on how best to do that.

[W]here did you justify actual support of Pawlenty without referencing whatsoever the opposition?

I won't go into this again. That was the focus of my previous post, but I will take your hypothetical because I think it is a good one.

If you are so willing to stand for the "R" simply because they are not "D" then what will you do in 2008 if Hilary jumps parties?

I would fight like hell to keep her from getting the nomination. I would do what I could to get a different candidate to win in caucuses and primaries.

Let's say despite the efforts of conservatives in the party she gets the nomination.

Let's say the dems nominate a Dean/Pelosi ticket (someone from the Kos far left wing).

Now let's assume that initial polling is about a 45-40 split favoring Dems with the remaining 15 polling for a real conservative from either a 3rd party or an unedorsed R.

If it looks REALISTICALLY possible to move that 15% to 51% then I fight like hell for the conservative.

If that is not a realistic option then I fight for Hillary. Though admittedly, it would be hard to fight as hard as I would for the conservative.

Why? Not because there is an R behind her name -- that has nothing to do with it. Rather because she would be the most conservative candidate that has a chance to win. I always support the most conservative candidate that has a realistic chance to win.

Now let's say the Dem's nominee is Lieberman or a Zell Miller instead of a far lefty. Then I may considering crossing over if I think the Dem may actually be more conservative than Hillary.

Good Dialogue!

July 14, 2006  
Blogger Nordeaster said...

I didn't address your re-phrased question.

What in the past 2 years should I as a fiscal conservative and a small government conservative take to support Pawlenty...not talking about his opposition whatsoever?

Again, I think you have to take into account if not the opposition at least the political climate and atmosphere of the state and the country.

Despite the shortcomings Pawlenty is literally the most conservative governor this state has had in my lifetime. Does he vote the way conservatives would like every time? No. Half the time, maybe. Is he an improvement over the status quo? Yes. A step in the right direction, so to speak. It is one or two steps on a long staircase.

Relative to other top 15 high taxed states, we raised them less than virtually all others. We fell significantly in the rankings. Did we cut them back? No but we basically kept them in check, relatively speaking. Look at New Jersey. They just jacked their sales tax 1 full %.

Did Pawlenty cut spending? No, definitely not. No conservative is happy about that, myself included. But did he spend as much as the legislature wanted? No. Did he push back against Pogemiller and Johnson? Yes. In that sense he curbed spending.

July 14, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Thank your for your answers. I appreciate you not ducking them. The respectful rhetorical clash in the direct Q&A is far more productive than talking points responding to talking points. And for me, I'm not smart enough to take them out of your answers...I need them answered directly once in a while. ;)

Before I respond I want to make a very crucial distinction.

You have articulated answers to my direct questions...and explained the "distinction" or the "bright line" that you decide by.

Much of my dischord with the "R" supporters is that they are unable to articluate why THIS time is different from other times. You admit that you would pull the lever for Hilary...and what would have to happen to cause that. I'm not asking for people to agree with me that T-Paw has to go, or that the time is right to "sacrifice" an election.

However, that old debate training kicks in and I look at the justifications against my positions. I think you can agree that most of what is out there is more dogmatic than thoughtful.

What you have done (I would love to take credit for drawing it out, but I won't...that is just your ability in discourse, methinks) is exactly what the Right needs. Connect the dots...then we understand more than IF we agree or disagree. We also understand WHY...more importantly we will know in 2 years when the landscape is different if we still disagree or if one side was more prescient (sp?) than the other. THAT is what makes the side more unified anyway.

I really do not think it is healthy to simply "agree to disagree" unless you understand WHY.

Now, why do we disagree? I think it is very simple. I think it is a matter of timing. If timing within the cycle gave us a less liberal Democrat ticket we may be closer to agreement...now might be OK to "sacrifice" an election. Or if timing within the cycle were such that Lourey got the nod instead of Hatch then we may be closer to agreement...now might not be OK to "sacrifice" an election.

Sincerely, if Pawlenty were not endorsed this year but someone whose campaign promises were the same as Pawlenty's record the past 2 years I would have no problem voting for him, maybe even volunteering. If Coleman were running now I would help his campaign.

The issue to me with Pawlenty is the platform of being fiscal conservative and each year sliding away from that. I'm a former broker and I see that as a trend I don't want to allow continuing.

That said, I have one more bone to pick with your responses. Basically, Hatch may be as dangerous as Carter. I believe it was in one of your answers (I'm too lazy right now to scroll the page and find out) where you said a revolution can only come after hugely disasterous tenures...and Carter was one example. If you see those both as being true then is it not fair to say that now might not be a bad to for a wounded GOP to suck up the 2006 race to come back much stronger in 2010? Hatch = Carter in potential danger suggests that. I know, don't want to wreck the economy, lose jobs, can't undo the universal health care (UHC). Wrecking the economy and losing jobs will happen, just more slowly depending not on the occupant of Governor but on the makeup of the State Legislature. Reversing UHC is possible if you have a strong-willed GOP (which you have to admit no matter what happens this year the MN GOP is not strong-willed). That Great Society crap still exists nationally is not because it is impossible to undo but the GOP caucus has been unwilling to make the tough choices which may cost them their election. That focus on the next election is what moves them to the middle AND dissolves their spine/will.


July 14, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home