Unions Still Suck, Example Notwithstanding

A previous post that was also linked on Facebook had some innocuous discussion in the Facebook comments. I made one concurring point that earned a disagreeing response.

Now, due to the cost to my "inner circle" in friends and family because they could not tolerate disagreement or refused to be respectful to opposition I had decided that all disagreements relating to blog posts linked on Facebook had to be removed from Facebook and brought to the blog.

So a comment came that disagreed. It warrants response (and should be preserved in the interest of open discussion) but I will not have it the debate on Facebook. I asked the person to move the comment here and they did not. At this moment I realize a possible reason: what they were replying to was a previous Facebook comment. So I moved that here also, brought their comment here and am now going to reply.

My comment:

The laws are so strong now (thanks to effective unions in the past and in spite of unions of the present) that if all he unions disappeared I don't believe there would be any problems. The unions now on the other hand are shooting themselves in the foot more often than not. From the Ford plant in St Paul closing because of the union's stubbornness on wages to companies all over the country experiencing the same to AFSCME going on strike and having to come back to a worse deal than they walked out on BOTH times the went on strike. The teacher's unions in Elk River, for example, pricing themselves so far beyond market (annual 10% raises during this economy is ridiculous and greedy) which led to huge cuts all around that ended up hurting the kids more than if the teachers had to settle for a raise that the average citizen in the area got during those years (2%-3%).

The response:

Whoa- so teachers don't get to ask for a 10% raise that would put them on par with middle-middle class? The problem is the schools in general aren't getting enough money. It isn't unreasonable for teachers to demand fair pay for what they worth.

I am from a deeply rooted pro-union family. The union went on strike on the Iron Range when safety was an issue - the only reason Mintack fixed the issue was because if they strength of the picket line.
Manny was in the same union for many years - never were we bled dry, asked to pay much for union dues. When [redacted] had knee surgery, his union rep and others from the large union came over with fresh cooked freezable meals, toilet paper, and an envelope with a check inside - that happened to cover the money [redacted] would have lost out on between the surgery and the two week waiting period until his temporary disability insurance kicked in. They would also call every few days to see if they could send someone over to help me take care of a baby [redacted], a 3 year old [redacted] and a laid-up [redacted].
When [redacted] was able to go back to work, and caught viral meningitis the first night back, the union was by his side when he was told he was going to be fired (which would be totally illegal!)!

Unless you are in or had direct experience as a union worker, you have no idea how much good they really do. Lumping one bad union rep into all unions would be like me lumping all republicians as mean spirited, women hating, wife, children bible-beating, anti-government (unless it's the death penalty), whiyes-only America because I've read article and have seen/read/heard news reports saying one or more of those from republicans.

The first thing that has to be addressed is the often used, very insulting and terribly broken idea that only people within a group are able to speak about the group, or worse, only people within a class can opine about the class. This broken mentality is used to an extreme in the abortion debate and more often than not it is the left that tries this exclusionary debate tactic in other areas too. Here it is in a union discussion, "[u]nless you are in or had direct experience..." The fact is people can talk intelligently about unions without having been in one. And to be sure, I am talking with experience both inside and out.

Furthermore, I am not talking about ONE bad rep. I am talking about the entire union (AFSCME) being corrupt and unions in general being bad in the big picture anymore.

The next item to address is the 10% issue. First, I didn't say teachers could not ask for it. Ask for the moon. The issue is that they got it locked into a contract and it was while the rest of the citizens were seeing pay cuts, lay offs or pay freezes. It was those 10% annual raises that was breaking the budget and the unions mule-like stubbornness to yield on those increases that caused classes to get closed, the teacher roster to be shrunk and still a need to go to the middle class taxpayer for an increase in property taxes. The property tax increase, paid for by citizens that were experiencing pay cuts, lay offs and pay freezes, were simply to bridge a major budget gap...and when salaries for teachers made up 75% of the budget and those salaries were being increased by 10%...there is a problem.

Crap, 10% annual increases just for existing, no matter what the economy is like, is ridiculous...especially when it is the taxpayer that is funding it.

Finally, I find it fascinating that on the one hand the reply says that 'lumping' one experience as a reflection of the whole is bad, but uses one personal experience as a reflection of the whole to make the case that unions are good. I agree, using one experience to reflect upon the whole is poor practice and bad sampling. But I have seen many, many, many, many more examples of unions causing more harm for the big picture than causing good. From crooked books, unethical campaigning practices, strong arm and intimidation for compliance, violence against non-conformists, pricing themselves out of jobs, demanding unreasonable concessions, putting teachers ahead of students, protecting bad employees at the expense of good employees, prohibiting career advancement for the sake of not raising the bar too high...all of these have multiple occurrences from most unions across the country.

Examples of them doing right by the larger good and bigger picture are just too few and far between. In fact, your personal example is not exclusive to unions. That would be done by a church group, close neighbors or a tight family. I have heard of PTA groups doing similar things and perfect strangers opening help-fund accounts for people going through hard times. Bowling leagues have done similar acts of goodness as have softball teams. I remember a collection for someone being done for the family of a swimming teammate of one of my exchange student's. They had a medical emergency or something and collections were being done to help them. People pitch in like that when there is a death in a family. A close friend of mine and his siblings families didn't have to cook for over a week after the death of a parent because so many people gave them prepared meals. That can be heard all over the place.

In fact, I think a stronger case can be made that your experience was just people and the only reason the word "union" is involved is that it happened to be the membership that the people were introduced in. I would bet that union compassion had nothing to do with it, but human compassion did. If it were unique to the union then there would not be a plethora of examples of similar (or more) compassionate contribution outside of unions.

The main point still remains, and remains well supported and poorly refuted: Unions Suck.

How Dare I Speak The Truth

Earlier today I saw a ranting post about abortion. I was trying to turn over a new leaf and not cross mediums (eg bringing Facebook onto blog or email/chat into blog). But this person's horrifically broken logic is so frightening that I needed it out there to demonstrate why the debate only continues to devolve.

I try not to get too political on Facebook, but does someone have to publicly say something like this once a week now? Like I've said before, I would feel a whole lot better about this position if there was ANY attention paid toward ending rape and rape culture. But, frankly, until someone from the republican party says he or she is going to at least ATTEMPT to look at policies that would protect women from this brutal violence, I don't want to hear one more thing about ending a woman's right to reclaim her personal freedoms.

That was followed up with a comment by the same author.

I know this is going really far out on a limb here, but I would love to hear a man that's experienced rape and knows the degradation and powerlessness that haunts a survivor talk about it with other men that clearly don't have a clue. It feels to me that if these political candidates can publicly call rape, "legitimate rape," "the rape thing" and "force-able rape" without shame or fear, and without any kind of recognition of how they might be minimizing and discounting the experiences of women who have survived sexual violence, then they're already past the point of being able to really hear and empathize with a woman's point of view. (Emphasis added)

I responded only with "Absolutely disagree".

The very premise of the person's original position is deeply flawed. "If rape exists then all abortion must be available." Mind you, this person is pro-abortion and very much anti-fetus rights (not trying to alter the labels of the debate, just trying to keep the labels for this person as accurate as possible). I disagree with the very premise of the post.

I disagree with the comment as well. Unless I am missing something, the implication is that men who have been raped need to educate men who have not before the have nots can formulate their own opinion. This is an oft repeated statement in the abortion debate, that some class of people (usually all males, or all males who are anti-abortion) should not be listened to because they are not a part of the other class (usually women, or pro-abortion people). This is a ridiculous expectation of discussion. To put this kind of exclusion on a public law issue is irresponsible.

Imagine, only rich people are allowed to discuss tax policies for the wealthy. Only landowners can discuss tax levies. Only business owners can discuss labor laws. Only people who have been brutalized by police can have an opinion on police brutality laws.

Ridiculous.

Why did I comment, though? Because the person claims to be "open for discussing hot topics" and "able to have mature discussions" and is "a moderate". Deep down I have never believed any of those claims, but I could only take them at their word. I offered only that I disagreed and right away I received a chat request. Why in chat? To prevent the appearance of disagreement in public. The chat was brief. The thing that ended it was me saying that some women make it up.

Person: they think women make it up.
So maybe it would be great for a man that has experienced it to talk about it publicly.
You are misreading this in a profound way.
Me: no, but me not being raped does not mean i have not abillity to think about the issue critically, have an opinion on it and dare to say that women could be not on the same page
"...and empathize with a woman's point of view" implies that the woman's POV is of higher regard on the matter.
Person: Okay, but you haven't called it "the rape thing" "legitimate rape" implying that there is illegitimate rape, and "forceable rape" implying that woman are making up their claims.

(Emphasis added)To which I replied (brace yourself, it is highly offensive): "Some women do".

The response? "I have to go...I can't talk about this with you."

Of course they could not talk about it. Their moral high ground was being challenged. Of course they could not talk about it. Those who often profess the ability to handle discussions usually cannot. Of course they could not talk about it. Those who preach the requirement of others to be tolerant are often the least tolerant people around...and this is no exception.

***** UPDATE (edited) *****
Not that it really matters, but I find it comical that the person unfriended me on Facebook (oh gasp) within minutes. Wait, that is not the comical part. Then 2 hours later sent a friend request...after dragging a loved one into the mix. This coward keeps putting loved ones on the spot about my beliefs instead of leaving them out of it (since the loved ones do not like to be in these discussions) and coming straight to the source, me. Coward.

***** UPDATE 2 *****
The person in question upheld my every assessment of their character. Like a coward, when the going to tough she ran away. The shame is not only how badly she is fooling herself about who she is (thinking she is a tolerant person of differences in people, thinking she is open-minded and thinking she treats people fairly--these characteristics only exist from them when she doesn't care about the topic you disagree on OR if you unless you agree with her). The pitiful part is that for someone who thinks she puts a high value on a friendship she was abysmally disrespectful to me for so long (which I endured because my loved one highly valued their friendship) and was so quick to split when she finally found a topic that I voiced disagreement with her on.

The truth is that this person has been sending litmus tests about me to others. "He doesn't really believe that? No? Good." I recognize this and have seen it often. It always comes from self-proclaimed "open-minded" people who preach to others about their moral obligation to be tolerant and usually is accompanied by a woefully off-the-mark claim of being a moderate. If you were to bet a mortgage on those people you know eventually tucking and running you would win many a mortgage payments. This person was no exception. Disagreement was frowned on. Opposing viewpoints were openly mocked in parties, parties that would otherwise be politics-free.

The person was nice otherwise. It is only that when it came to current events there was no room for tolerance of other viewpoints, there was some of the most passive-aggressive behaviors seen and disrespect sometimes would bleed into other areas. I take that back...current events and sports were the topics that had to be avoided because there was little tolerance, if any at all, given to non-conforming views.

While this whole drama was (1) predicted by me a couple months ago, and (2) a perfect example of how fickle the person is, the best example (and the confirmation to me of the true character of this person) came a couple of days before the Giants second Super Bowl victory over the Patriots. It was a simple and direct message on Facebook saying that if the Patriots lose, anyone who even speaks of the game to her in any fashion will be unfriended and she will never speak to those people again. She reiterated shortly after that that she was not joking. That was the day I knew the true nature of her "tolerance", "open-mindedness" and sense of equality...for if they had won there would be lots of talk about the game from her.

The person is somewhat outraged that text from Facebook was quoted. It seems in their vast knowledge of the stuff they judge others on they don't know that Facebook has been deemed by courts to be public information. [facepalm].

Frankly, I am sad for the loved ones who valued their relationship with this person. I am neither surprised by the turn of events (like I said, I predicted exactly this a while ago after a get together at a friend's that was moving out of country) nor am I bothered. On the surface she was very pleasant and inviting. So long as things were good for her she was there to listen. I don't know of anytime she was physically "there" to help, but I know for quite some time I did not include her on the list of people to ask. On the surface she was friendly and caring. But I have known what it would take to maintain a deeper relationship, a close friendship, with her. It would take us lying to her about our beliefs, joining her in the mocking of people that are of like mind to us, agreeing with her on everything. And, of course, that would be the antithesis of a close friendship. That is why she & I were not able to be close. It is why I feel pity for this person. How can you find truly enlightening friendships when you are so obtuse towards tolerance? If no one is able to do anything more than stroke your ego and not challenge your mind you will never grow the mind. And this person is in that pitfall.

If someone does not know how to weather a storm then they are not able to be a good friend, a close friend or even a friend that can be counted on...ever.

***** UPDATE 3 *****
I had to take drastic steps to stop the stalking by these people. I kind of hoped that when they protested about being called a coward for, among other things, continually going to a third party to ask what my responses are that they would instead come to me directly. Nope. I kind of thought that when they said they were done with me that their trolling and attempts to cause trouble in our lives would end. Nope. I noticed their IP addresses were still hitting here and finally had to take steps that I didn't even take amidst death threats: I implemented a script to block their IDs. Turns out that they want to control other's content, thoughts and beliefs. All while calling themselves "open minded" and "tolerant" and "fair"...the only question is do they know they are full of it or have they projected the lie so well that they are convinced it is true?

You got what you wanted

A blogger I read and respect had a bit of a rant about Tuesday's elections. Part of that rant included wagging her finger at the voters, specifically the conservatives voters and those pointing out the fact that there was no reason to vote FOR the GOP.

This morning, those who called for conservatives to lay down the pen when it came to their representatives are the ones to blame for the losses, and you can tell the guilt by the spin. What they do, they now do with our blessing. Because we thought it best to act like a bunch of whiny three year olds, denied our sugar-coated cereal, and throwing a public temper tantrum, complete with fist pounding.

Congratulations. You threw the bums out. Even when some of them weren't bums.

Congratulations. You cleaned house. Now it can get really dirty.

Congratulations. You got what you wanted.

Emily, I love you blog. I usually agree with what you write and when I disagree I can at least understand and appreciate your position.

This time you are dead wrong.

"Congratulations. You got what you wanted" you say.

Not really. This time last year there were 4 GOP candidates for my Congressional Race (MN-6). I wanted Mark Kennedy instead to stay put. He didn't. I wanted him to run for Senate on his House record. He didn't. I wanted to run on issues...he ran on making semantical games about his opponent the issue.

To replace him were four conservatives (well, one moderate-conservative, but you get the point), but only three people who I felt good about as a person. (Did you ever shake hands with someone and feel like you just touched the devil? When I shook the 4th's hand I would get that feeling EVERY TIME for the past 2 years.) That 4th person won. I wanted someone I could vote for. I didn't get that.

Yes, I skipped 2 races (actually voted "Present" in the Write-in). Have no fear, both of the GOP candidates won anyway. I voted for the IP candidate for MN Governor because the Republican has done NOTHING for fiscal conservatives in the past 2 years, stated the "era of small government is over" and, imho, did not deserve to be returned to office with the help of my fiscal conservative vote. He earned it as much as I expected his Democrat challenger to have earned my vote. I wanted the fiscal conservative I was promised 4 years ago.

I wanted the GOP held House & Senate to FIX the pourous borders, illegal immigration and push for small government. Instead we have an expensive fence going up for 1/3 of the border, amnesty to reward illegals and a federal government telling me how to live (e.g. internet gambling is bad for me...to include online investing).

I wanted an Secretary of State in MN to do her job. The GOP incumbent has been a miserable partisan failure, and a liar to boot.

Given the batch of GOP candidates on my ballot the choices were not even what I wanted. I wanted none of them to win...so I did not get what I wanted. My responsibility when voting is ONLY regarding the races on my ballot. If you want to blame anyone blame the general Republican theme this election (which I pointed out in April both on the air and on my blog and predicted would lead to a massacre). Their themes: "Vote for us, cuz the other guys are worse" and "Vote for us to make the changes we need." How anyone thought either of those could win for a party that at the time controled both sides of Congress and the White House nationally (and the House & Governor's mansion in MN) is beyond me. THAT is the person needing scorn from those on the right licking their wounds. That finger wagging is in the wrong direction pointing at those of us who WANTED better candidates and simply made do with the absolute crap in front of us.

In the end, it is not too hard of a choice when you have an incumbent with a record for not getting the job done and a challenger who has no record.

The general feeling amongst the GOP was that voters had a responsibility to make their choices based on the national picture. Sorry, but that is just stuipid. If I were voting for Speaker of the House then it would be on my ballot. If it is supposed to be a vote based on which party should control Congress then my ballot would not say:

6th Congressional District
John Binkowski (Independent)
Michele Bachmann (Republican)
Patty Wetterling (Democrat)
Write-In

And for the record, I did write in Jay Esmay. If what you think the voters SHOULD have voted on or kept into consideration was a national vote on Congressional Control then the ballot should look like this:

National Control of Congress
Republican
Democrat
Other

My ballot did not have that, so that is not what should have been in consideration. My job as a voter was to weigh the character, the adherence to their own principles, their record, their positions, the person...weight those about the candidates against each other and select the best one. This year in many of the races the GOP candidate just could not pass that test.

But to insist that a voter must instead vote according to which party will become Speaker of the House is as intellectually valid as walking into the booth and flipping a coin. It is as responsible as voting for a party and then drawing a name from the phone book after the election to see which person would represent the winning party.

And for those who during the entire election cycle villified people intending to vote 3rd party or skipping various races I want you to answer these questions. In my State Senate race there was an ethically challenge Republican incumbent that could find a happy home in the Green party outside of his 'pro-business' claim and there was a Democrat challenger who, after a 30 minute conversation, I could tell was more of partisan sell-out than even the KvM authors.

Many, many, many of those who pilloried the 'skip the race' or 3rd-party voters work from the premise that the choices are ONLY the 'R' or the 'D'. To not actively pick one means you support the other. To understand the problem with it answer this think of who they think I should have voted for in the aforementioned race. Who should I have voted for in my State Senate race?

Really, I could not in good conscience pull the lever for either and there were no other candidates. I checked "Write-in" and wrote "Voting Present". So, according to those 'you're supporting the other side since you did not vote for our side' folks, it could be asserted that I 'supported' or 'helped' or 'voted' both sides. What about the other 49 that cast a "Write-in" vote? Who did they help? What about the 1,018 (3.0%) people that skipped the race entirely...who did they help?

And is it the fault us 1,068 people that did not cast either a "R" or a "D" vote that the DFL majority in the Senate grew by 12 DFL seats? If so, which ONE candidate did we 1068 voters help...and why that one, but not the other. How are we 1068 voters in this State Senate district responsible for the expansion of the Democrat majority?

So, all of you blaming the voters...you're wrong and lazy. Find the real blame, but it is not the voters.

All of you blaming the GOP or conservatives for not supporting the candidates...you're wrong and blind. The slate of good, competent politicians was thin and the slate of good, competent people was even thinner.

All of you who blasted non-voters, 3rd-party voters and 'skip the race' voters before the election...shut up now. Funny how the most vicious of those people are the ones now jumping on board with the very things I was saying last year.

Oh, and, Andy...you conspiracy freak. Interesting little thought.

No, I know that overnight there was probably a massive research into my background. They will stop at nothing in this. Just like I got savaged by Jeffers folks for defending Pawlenty, I will now get savaged by the Carey folks.

Remember everyone, Ron Carey was supposed to be the guy to give the party back to the base, and stop making all the decisions at the top. Here we have some proof that ALL the decisions were made at the top, and in fact they are telling the base to F off.

I will be lucky to survive their assault on my character, but I feel that I must move on.

Let me offer to you the same thing you said to me during the summer. There is no way in the world that kind of thing would happen. You are making things up, imagining these things. You are saying anything just to bring down people for your own Quixotic reasons. The GOP does not do background searchs on their critics. And they do not intimidate or threaten critics. You have it wrong...even if you have witnessed it, you are wrong. All of the evil things you may have witnessed behind he scenes did not happen.

I'm just giving you the advice that you gave to me...even though I know those things from first hand experience.

And I am doing it more gently than you and your pals did to us non-conformists this past year.

Marty avoids the point and the facts

I explained a few of the many objective reasons why Mary Kiffmeyer's incompetence should not be returned to office today.

Marty gives an effort of defending the highly incapable Kiffmeyer. He missed so much so badly that a re-direct to the facts are necessary.

Marty claims that Kiffmeyer is pro-business. Unfortunately the record has not shown that. Yes, she advocates cutting fees charged to business...by cutting her hours of operation when she doesn't get her way. Yes, she cuts the fees...after criticism for specific fees become loud. ANYONE has a fighting chance to do better. Marty's charge against Mark Ritchie is, well, not about Ritchie...which is typical when someone is defending piss-poor performance against solid criticism and a possibly better challenger.

Marty also gives the rationale that since Kiffmeyer is not a negative to voter turnout she should be returned. Well, mediocrity at best is not something to brag about. But the point of showing that Kiffmeyer had no impact on voter turnout is that her claims (both her in Marty's interview and in ads) are misleading at best, blatant lies at worst.

All in all, listening to his defense of Kiffmeyer is a classic example of Lewis' Law: Never underestimate a person's ability to rationalize anything. He provides nothing substantial in support, uses pre-judged generalizations in her defense. You cannot blame him...he is defending someone whose in-job performance is atrocious and her word is worth very little (vis a vis: failure to keep her appointments).

Political Infestation

I frequent several forums for car related things, and while trying to get opinions on what kind of Dodge Neon I should have as a winter car, this conversation went south pretty fast. On Neons.org I was mentally assaulted by political topics despite my attempt to bring the posting back to the intended topic: Which car should I get.

Note that in most forums of any kind, you can find me by my alias: Zeeboid.

Now, don't get me wrong... Neons.org is an awesome resource if you own a Dodge Neon. I'm not negatively commenting on them in any way shape or form... And I wouldn't even bring this up, but some comments were made about this blog that I found offensive.

Now... at several moments, I asked that political discussions be held, oh... I don't know... On a political forum or something? I even politely gave a resource as to where to do so:

If you want to talk politics, I can start a new topic for that, or you can go to my(Tony's) blog. I would encourage people to attempt to challenge my logic: http://alwaysrightusuallycorrect.blogspot.com

This is the straw that broke the penguin’s back:
From the guy posting as "ben"

I read your little "white is right" blog. It's cute, looks like a bunch of Bill O' Riley wannabes. And honestly, I know I couldn't beat your logic, your head is too far up your own ass for me to even begin to try communicating with you.

The "White is Right" comment is funny yet offensive, considering that my ethnic background includes Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux and German Jew, and Tony is well... "of Mexican descent." And that Bill O'Riley thing... There is little about Bill O'Riley that can be respected. To quote Tony:

O'Reilley wannabes? I hate Bill. I respect his hardness with everyone, but I hate his pushing his own morality on people while saying others morality should not be pushed on people.

So, ben, if you would like to have a discussion about politics, I offer you a forum. But please do a background check before throwing out blanket comments... and if you can find a place where this "redskin" and "wetback" have posted some "White Power" nonsense, I would love to see it.

********** Update 10/4/06 11:57am **********

Ben's Reply:

Nothing worth defending, I don't feel the need to get in a ---- contest with somebody who has an obvious insecurity complex. Post what you want about me, I won't read it, or lose sleep over it. If it makes you feel better about yourself, I'm happy for you. White power.

Hmmm... There is that "White Power" thing again... I bet he didn't catch our ethnic backround. Oh well, at least he's happy that I'm happy.

Quotidian

My quotidian quest of blogs to quench the desire to find new, practicle and unique things has finally paid off. I found this great word from Night Writer.

Effort on the Pity Train

Following the Example
I have recently been diagnosed with a TFCC tear. This means that it can be very painful to type...sometimes downright difficult.

Additionally my doctor is investigating what seems to be a likely diagnosis of rhumatoid arthritis. This would help to explian a lot of issues in my joints...my hands and fingers especially.

Oh yeah, I have severly damaged knee ligaments in both knees. Stairs...suck. Sometimes even walking is a pain. Riding the bus...painful. Sitting in the movie theatre a complete nightmare...especially for longer movies or in colder theatres.

My aunt has breast cancer. My sister was a victim of a hit & run accident (by an illegal alien, no less) which has left her with severe mental and psychological problems.

I'm going to follow the Andy (Residual Forces) example...speaking ill about me is off-limits. Not about my ailments, but about me at all.

But I bet most of you are not going to (a) claim anyone speaking against me are practicing ill-taste, (b) disassociate yourself from those just for speaking about me, (c) not buying the idea that I am off limits.

The Hammer
Each of these and many more physical ailments are true in my case.

The point, however, is that simply because someone wears their personal problems on their sleeve should be afforded no more immunity than anyone else. Everyone has problems, issues and ailments. It might be a nice world where suffering an ailment means you get immunity from all criticism but that is not the reality...partially because suffering is a part of life and partially because some people will use that timeout for their own personal advantage (like maybe appendicitis).

So, get on your cross again Andy (it is almost midnight, so a new day means a new cross). Pander for sympathy again. Attack people with venom and vitriol while crying foul if the same is done to you (flip-flop?). But a bounce back to reality is long overdue for you.

And btw, like I said...if you want me to say this to your face you know exactly where to find me each and every Sunday. (Notice that I'm giving you 2 days notice to change your schedule not just 5 hours notice you tried to impose on me.)

********** UPDATE **********
Bobby,
You are exactly right...this was just plain mean. I am sorry for letting my emotions overwhelm my judgement. This post should have stayed in the "Draft" and never be published.

The point is still valid, the assessment is still valid (and I know people will deny that, but that is the fact, Jack). I believe every word I posted. I stand behind them. So I do not renounce or retract what this post says.

But the thoughts should have been thoughts shared with confidantes alone. The provocation that inflamed my response to hatefulness was his "asshat" posting and other falsehood comments throughout the day. My resulting loss of control and judgement is what I apologize for.

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers from Residual Forces...
Just one question for you: While you may not like WHAT is said or HOW it is said is it incorrect?

I did not think so, either.

Andy's cross...there is another side to the story

Andy has some personal issues (constant story, differing details). He nailed himself to his cross (a regular event) about it. Someone replied to him about Karma and called Andy hateful person. Andy's response...obscenity and a violation of privacy by posting the person's e-mail in public. (The same Andy who went ballistic because I quoted one phrase from an e-mail, never named the actual source, but somehow I violated an assumed privacy. Hypocrite.)

It seems that because Andy put himself on his cross noone is allowed to speak about him. I have gotten e-mail stating that my comments to Andy were out of line. I ask this of you: What comments about Andy's condition did I make? I cannot find them.

Andy's comments state "Well I'm glad to see that taking advantage at one of the lowest points in my lie [sic?] 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."

No Andy, you wear your troubles on your sleeve. But it does not absolve you from legitimate criticism. I admit, I am highly aggressive. Some label that hateful, that's fine. You, sir, make everything personal and hateful. You were off making personal attacks in an unprovoked and ungermane fashion on other blogs while someone was pointing out that you were a hateful person.

You attacked that person as if they are out of line. I pointed out that what they said was not untrue.

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.)

That is all that was said about his problems...actually, that was not even about his problems...but Andy, poor guy, is so used to being a martyr in every situation took it as being about his personal problems instead of what it was really about...his hateful character.

So, here is the blast of reality for Andy (and the people who have sent e-mail which include things like, "I am having a hard time with the idea of engaging you on this topic due to your comments about Andy -- particularly at a time of personal trials for him."). Everyone has trials. Everyone has problems. No one is off limits because they have problems. Would your problems specifically be off limits? Certainly, if they were not broadcast. Though by broadcasting ones problems it leaves your problems open for discussion as well.

Now, here is where the post will get VERY long...

A while ago Andy put himself on his cross again. He was getting heavy criticism in the midst of claiming that the GOP state convention was not covered because of media bias. Suddenly blogs that I read were telling people to talk Andy out of quitting. Though I don't like him at all as a blogger, detest his abandonment of any semblance of intellectual honesty and do not like him as a person I felt a need to help clear up a human being's fog within. I sent 2 e-mails to him on the topic.

I bring this up because Andy mentions them in his comment.

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, here they are. Read it for your own amusement...but understand that I wrote this despite the fact that I do not like him and would would not shed a tear if his participation in the world of politics and blogging to disappear.

Perhaps I was wrong to even try to offer any advice on a human level. If someone were as hateful as Andy and his co-authors say I am I doubt this kind of effort would be made to help someone.

Note...I did have to remove references to other specific people. They are replaced with "xxxx".
E-Mail 1

Human to human advice...
Most of what you say "people have said" were things I have said. I hope you are not giving me so much credit that I am the spearhead of your wanting to quit. Neither of us are that important...and neither of us should be that important to each other regardless of how much respect each has.

SIDE NOTE: Truth be told and there is record of this somewhere on Andy's blog (so you cannot claim sour grapes), I have lost respect for Andy as a person last summer.

Should you continue blogging? I began to hate blogging when I started to feel I was blogging for the benefit of others. "I gotta blog for my readers" and that kind of thing. My blog is for one person: Me. It helps to collect my thoughts, examine what I believe or have yet to believe, chronical things that strike me as interesting or necessary, etc.

You have an interesting dilemma...you also blog on blogs with a purpose (beyond your own). That may complicate WHY you blog, but it should not complicate HOW you blog.

Be yourself...or at least be what you are comfortable with. And in the end realize that there will be firestorms from many directions. What do you want out of your blog? Answering that will likely help guide you in the future.

Credibility? Beware of "rumors" or even hypothesis...at least beware of them too often. I have been shafted by a real story where the people involved decided that burying the story was better (damn the principles, best for the party if it is buried...you know what I'm talking about). I learned a lesson directly from that. I learned many, but only one is relevant to this e-mail. The truth and fact is not always a story able/possible to put out in the public. However, Drudge's credibility only comes from half the country and I think he has done an unbelievable job in watching out for 'rumors'.

High Traffic? There are many ways to get that. What may fit your style is continuing what you have been doing for the past several months. Republicans love your stuff right now. Minnesota's blog landscape is dominated by partisans...on both sides...which means you will maintain higher traffic by continuing what you are doing.

Internal Betterment? You need to be willing to admit that you are wrong, and more importantly admit the faults and successes of your brethren and supportees. If you ignore the weaknesses within the armor you can never improve them. Read Westover carefully. His criticism of the GOP is both admitting the problems of what he supports and trying to get those weaknesses fixed.

Respect? I think if this is your goal then you have to ask yourself each time you post (or at least before you respond to comments) 1) Do I do this? 2) Am I consistent on this position, even when it is not beneficial to me? 3) Is it possible for reasonable people to disagree (without being mutineers, etc.)? 4) If I piss on this person (or allow the pissing on this person to continue) do I care when it will be done to me in similar circumstances?

I will use myself as an example for this. Frankly, when I get on the air I tell what I think and I am not out to make friends or enemies...just convince people of what I see, why I see it and why it is important to them. Supporters of those I go after may not "respect" me, but there respect is purely based on their agreement. I do not care for their respect. The respect I seek is from those who disagree with me or have no opinion. Xxxxxx has repeatedly commented on his envy of my being willing to go after Kennedy or Bachmann (which he agrees with me on the former, understands but disagrees with me on the latter) when necessary. When we interview DFLers I gain the respect of those I disagree with because of how I handled fairly the interviewees. I am proud of that.

The fact that people detest me online because of my words against Bachmann and my placing Wetterling higher than Bachmann on my list of electables does not matter to me. Their "respect" is based on my compliance with their views. Who gives a damn about them? Not I. Their "respect" is as worthy to me as the shit in my dog's kennel...because it is not based on anything beyond dictatorial
compliance.

So, what do you WANT from blogging? An outlet for your thoughts. Keep going the way you are...and ignore traffic because it will come and go, come and go as a result. Recognize that you are not going to get love mail the majority of the time no matter what you seek from the blog. So figure out what do you really want (in the deeper sense...like in Swimming With Sharks) and strive for that. Do not seek the public adoration in any manner and you won't be disappointed.

Now, with all of that being said, which Andy would I personally enjoy reading again? The Andy that was blogging between about September and December. If THAT writing standard returns, let me know. I will gladly read you again.

I needed a break and then continued on...

E-Mail 2

I got to your posting through the link from KvM and did not read the full post (damn that ADD). The first e-mail was more for introspection...should you quit blogging? If you get through that and decide you will continue blogging then this next part is relevant.

The questions you ask for brutal honesty are loaded and open. So any answers you get are more about everyone else's personal preferences than your own, and as I discussed in the previous e-mail your blog should be about YOUR preferences. As a result I will address the specific questions you asked.

ARE YOU THE JOKE THAT YOU AND OTHERS THINK?
I'm not sure you are anymore a joke than I am. Do people question our motives? Yep. Do they think less because we disagree with them? Yep. That is a content issue and no matter what your content is people will think of you as a joke for one reason or another. If there is any reason to believe that either of us are jokes then I'm betting that in your case it is the allegiance to winning and in mine it is my non-allegiance to party loyalty in any manner. To me, I accept that as a consequence of my beliefs. I urge you to do the same.

IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING RIGHT OR WRONG?
That is up to you and only you to decide. Being of the more libertarian/conservative mind I would say that in the quasi-public/quasi-private arena of blogs there is very little that is wrong. To quote Aragorn, "What does your heart tell you?"

HAVE YOU SOLD OUT FOR THE REPUBLICANS?
You know what I think. But that is not truly going to help you. If that is something you are worried about (having sold out) then do what I did when I wondered the same thing years ago about myself. Every issue that comes up examine what your panacea is. What is the extreme of that position? Does it conflict with other positions? If so, why is this acceptable or else re-examine your position. (The death penalty is the most difficult for me...I still struggle with it). Once you have begun that I think you will be in a better place to evaluate (a) membership within the GOP and (b) how much are you willing to sacrifice/accept for that membership?

Membership within...
For most people they are willing to accept a number of inconsistencies within their party (both sides) for the larger prospect of minor changes in public policy. Let's be honest, neither party has the true will to actually make major changes in public policy. They talk big but with the rare exception large changes are too large for politicians to embrace.

For a few these inconsistencies in philosophy, rhetoric or performance are simply not acceptable. Of this subset some try to change the problems within (e.g. Westover, Andrade) and for some they are simply tired of the constant losing battle (e.g. myself, Dan Ochsner). The size of these subsets ebbs & floes and this year I think is the beginning of the uptrend in the tired group. You know when I left the party for these reasons. Shortly after that the national talk show I listen started saying the same thing...hoping for a good 3rd party candidate in all of the races. But I digress...

I have a feeling that you are willing to accept the inconsistencies so at this point there is not a need for you to re-examine that. This part was irrelevant to you but I think necessary to understand the rest which is relevant to you.

Now prioritize what you believe in. Some people believe that no issue is more important than abortion (pro- or anti-). Some believe the size of government is the most important. Physically list your beliefs, your principles, and put them in order. Classify them: "not willing to compromise", "willing to compromise a little", "care a little, but not the end of the world". Now you are ready to answer "have you sold out"...which is not a bad thing if it is right for you.

Sacrifice/accept...
Here is the tricky part which may help you out. What is your priority in politics? Combining them is not going to help. Winning? The opposition losing (which is very different than winning)? Advance your platform? What is the most important one? Again, winning to advance your platform is combining goals...can't do that or you will not clear the funk. Some people are willing to sacrifice their beliefs for winning. Personally I will not. I find that it was better that Reagan challenged Ford in 1976...possibly weakening Ford enough for a loss to Carter...to refocus the GOP in 1980 in a more openly and honestly united way. The results of Reagan's presidency speak for themselves. In my view that was keeping principles above the party.

Were you wondering why I said you cannot mix goals? This is why. How much are you willing to sacrifice on that list of principles in order to gain a victory for the GOP? "This year is important." Yeah, yeah. Eventually you will realize that they all are 'the most important'. Being willing to sacrifice some your principles for ONE "important election" means you will always sacrifice those principles. I mean, 2000 was important because of the Supreme Court. Then came 2002 which was important because of 9/11. Then was 2004 which was important. Now is 2006 which is important, as will be 2008...you get the idea. If you were willing to sacrifice some of your principles for only the important then you are looking at 5 elections of sacrificing. That's why I said you cannot mix the goals when you prioritize them. They are actually very distinct and often conflicting.

SELLING OUT?
Now that all of that is done (you did do all of that right?) you are able to answer to your own satisfaction if you have "sold out" for the GOP. Is the top priority on your list "winning"? If so, then you are not really selling out because your top priority is not policy but victory. But you are then a "party" boy. Admit and embrace the characterizations that go with this.

If "victory" is not your top priority then how much of your principles are you willing to sacrifice to maintain your membership in the GOP? Are you sacrificing more than that in your support of the various candidates, the party, the methods or their message? If so, then yes you are selling out. You will need to reassess whom you support or your priorities in politics.

For example, to me the first step in evaluating who I will support is their character. Once in a while there is a candidate I believe to be of horrible character as a person. Even if I agree with their platform 100% I will not support them, aid them or vote for them. To me, silence is tacit support. And, no, simply disagreeing with someone on every issue does not lessen their character. I think Ford Bell is of high character but I disagree with almost everything he says. After the character test I look at their platform and from there I will select a candidate who is very close to me on my important issues. At no point does or did party enter that equation to this point. It is if there still is an "undecided" that I look at their past performance as an office holder. If I was still undecided at this point I used to use my party membership as the tiebreaker. (From now on I will vote for the non-incumbent if I am this far in the vetting process.) This process, btw, is what let me vote against Judi Dutcher, the GOP candidate for State Auditor, who has not changed her much of her positions since then, just her affiliation.

For me, "victory" is not on my priorities and thus I am free to select whomever I deem is the better candidate for my issues.

Have you sold out? That depends on your priorities. If Victory is the top of that list, then no. Otherwise, yep, you possibly have. The question then becomes are you OK with being a sell out? That is also up to only you through inner reflection.

Sorry for the pair of long e-mails. When I see someone as externally tortured over something that should be resolved internally I want to help add a lens as objectively as possible to help that person.

Would Andy have done that to someone he could not care less for?

So before you guys start ripping me you should do yourselves a favor and begin to understand the whole story.

********** UPDATE **********
I guess Andy blogs to bump his traffic.

This came from him 5 minutes ago:

"Either link to me or leave me alone. Have the principle to give people the opportunity to read my original words."

People who read my blog are as smart as people reading Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza or a Supreme Court case. They site their sources and people interested in finding those sources can go and get them. When I quote something I tell where it is from. Well, there is one exception...if I find an article on Yahoo and cannot find it anywhere else I do not link to the Yahoo article...the link will be dead in a matter of days.

I add hyperlinks to the Source as a matter of convenience to the reader and to give the source attention...either for good or for bad. Andy thinks that it is somehow required to provide a hyperlink each time. Sorry, no. And, you will not see one here in the future. However, your writings are still in the public so it does not exclude you from the scrutiny of the public.

And it still stands...whatever you have in store for that you want "in person" you will get that pleasure when YOU take the trouble to drive to St Cloud. In the meantime please explain what exactly I said about your pigmentation disorder. Nothing. And what was it I said about you personally? You are a hateful person...and noone refuted that. The timing of what I said is inconsequential. If I were to wear my diagnoses on my sleeve I would not expect people to point out that I am a very aggressive person. Sorry, doesn't work like that. And if people want to say that my issues and diagnoses are the result of Karma created by, not my politics, but my methods...well, I have as little standing to bitch about that as you do.

Sadly, your ignorance precludes from recognizing that distinction.

Finally, Andy, I have no problem saying it to your face everything that I think about you. I am not wasting the gas to drive 45 miles just to tell you something at YOUR request, because you are unable to get the jist in writing. I have no problem telling you to your face whatever answers you want...catch is, you have to come to St Cloud on your time since it is your request.

End of line.

Bad analogy works so well...and don't insult me like that

Sell Your Principles or be a Traitorous Scoundral
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?

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.)

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.

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.


We Have Different Goals
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.


Pawlenty Is As Good As We Can Do
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.
I
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.
II
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 conservatives Republicans are using the same line. "Pawlenty is as good as we can do." No, he is not. But you are afraid to risk losing power temporarily to advance your principles...unless you are not really a small government fiscal conservative. I can see no reason to accept Pawlenty as "as good as it gets" if you actually are a small government fiscal conservative. The truth MUST be that you are using this line to masquerade as a small government fiscal conservative but really are a not-as-big-as-the-Democrats growing government type. A fiscal moderate, in all honesty, but since you're not as spend-happy as the liberals you use a false dichotomy of "if I'm not liberal then I must be conservative" to mask your growing-government lust.

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.

III
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.

GOP's ineptitude biting their butts now
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.

Conclusion
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,
or
If you are truly a small government conservative,
or
If you are truly for state's rights,
or
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.

Postscript
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.

The broken partisan mentality...ode to Andy

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.