| Residual Forces |
| A Stream of Consciousness by Andy Aplikowski on His Life, His Politics, His Dogs, His Truck, and Whatever Pleases His Fancy |
Residual Tweets
Help keep RF trucking
RF Googley
Words To Live By
Categories
Archives
Random Sidebar Badgery
Past Works
Oddly enough, I like the Blue one better.
And the slogan:
Minnesota -
Where liberals are Pawlenty-ful and RINOs are the Norm.
By all means, let’s shrink the “big tent” down to a small lean-to. Each of us could head our own party, and most of us could field a candidate who thought exactly like us on every issue. It’s the ultimate in personal liberty and political action, just the thing for this cyber-age. The great benefit, of course, would be that we would never be burdened with the responsibility of governing– it’s such a bother, yes?
Yes, it’s hilarious. Thank you. Let’s get it all out of our systems now, before the game gets deadly serious. Remember that if Democrats are elected, humor will be outlawed.
Let’s get it all out of our systems now, before the game gets deadly serious. Remember that if Democrats are elected, humor will be outlawed.
But we’ll all get free healthcare for the phsycological treatment.
Brent
Let’s get it all out of our systems now, before the game gets deadly serious. Remember that if Democrats are elected, humor will be outlawed.
You mean like they outlawed smoking on private property – No wait that was our Republican governor.
I sure you mean before they raise taxes and start suggest new taxes – No wait that was our Republican governor.
You mean before they suggest a huge take over of private health care – No wait that was our Republican Senator.
You right We need a bigger tent and a better slogan – How about
The Republican of Minnesota – We don’t have any ideals or beliefs but we welcome everyone and win election sometimes when our opponents are idiots or die.
And we need to make sure the tent is big – get rid of those nasty conservatives like John and Michelle. Where can we find more Jim Ramstads.
Maybe we can get Garrison Keilor to run for CD 2 or CD 6.
He’s rich enough to move there if he needs to. Sure he doesn’t share all (our any) of our beliefs but he can probably get elected. And remember your 10% friend is not your 90% enemy.
I marvel at the magical thinking that, when election day rolls around, we have a choice of a 100% pure conservative, in addition to the Republican and Democrat candidates. By all means, if you can find a better Republican than the one you have, get them out to win the endorsement and the primary, and work like the dickens to get them elected. But once you have a Republican candidate, work like the dickens to get them elected, regardless of who it is.
Look, the ACU rating of the WORST MN Republican is 84%, and of the BEST Democrat is 6%. The “difference” is 78%. If you won’t work for a candidate THIRTEEN TIMES BETTER than the opponent, then you can hold yourself responsible for letting the opponent win. Put another way, the RINO will vote with you 13 times out of 16, the Democrat will vote with you ONCE out of 16 times. You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Two problems with your theory.
First, The 3 votes when the RINO leaves your are the important votes.
Take Norm he is always there on the 70-30 votes (or on imigration where he was the second to last republican to cast his vote, knowing it ment nothing) but on the votes where it is close (like SCHIPs) he votes the wrong way.
So when it matters, the RINO and the Democrat get you the same outcome.
And the second point, using Norm as an example again. We have not even had caucus be we are told that Norm is the candidate and no one should run against him because we can’t afford a contested race.
The same was said of Ramstad. Who always voted wrong on the close votes.
So once a RINO is in office you must support him because he is a Republican incumbent.
I am not looking for 100% (heck even John and Michelle vote wrong on some small issues) but on the core issues, the RINO in MN always lead the Republicans to defeat. So while they may vote correctly on 13 bills that go nowhere or are already decided, on the 3 close votes where it matters they defeat you, the party and our principals.
And the flaw in your theory that there are only 3 votes out of 16 that matter. If there is only one vote in 16 that matters, then you have a 1 in 16 chance that the D and the RINO get you the same place. You have 13:1 better odds with a RINO. That’s good enough in my book, any day.
You are right, though, about the power of incumbency, and that’s why it really matters that we have contested races for open seats or for challengers, and why we have to work so hard AFTER that endorsement to insure victory– to keep the Democrats out of that seat. Once a Democrat becomes the incumbent, it is much harder to dislodge them, regardless of our candidate.
One other thing. There’s nothing that says you can’t call or write your RINO and tell them how to vote, or why. You can even make hollow threats about not supporting them, or send a note with your [smaller than requested] contribution, as I’ve taken to doing. Just don’t tell them a Democrat would be better, because that’s just not true.
You misunderstood, I was not talking theory.
Use Norm against your Theory. Please point to the 13 votes where his voting as an R matter.
Now look at his votes where he voted with the D and they did matter.
You will notice that he never cased an important R vote but was crucial on the D votes.
The point is not the Democrat will do better, it is that the outcome is the same.
I was thinking specifically of Norm.
He voted “with” us on the Global War on Terror (at least 4 times)
He voted against us on SCHIP
He voted with us on Justices Alito and Roberts
He voted against us on ANWR
He voted with us on Amnesty
Now look at Amy Klobuchar:
Has she cast ANY votes that weren’t “agaist” us? I think not.
Yes, Norm only votes “with” us 84% of the time. I wish it were higher, and I’ve written the Senator many times about various votes, only to find him holding true to principle as he sees it. But Amy votes with us 0% of the time, has no fixed principles that I can find, and it would be surprising to find a Democrat that did. So, if those are your choices, are you really going to throw away the 84% to get back ZERO?
Jerry you are missing the point.
It is not the % he is with us, but the % he is with us when it matters.
He voted “with†us on the Global War on Terror (at least 4 times)
I can’t find any where his vote made a difference.
He voted against us on SCHIP
His vote will be key in over-riding Veto
He voted with us on Justices Alito and Roberts
Again, not a close votes.
He voted against us on ANWR
Close vote, helped kill it.
He voted with us on Amnesty
He did not cast his vote on the floor until it was already defeated.
So again, he and Amy had the same effect.
On close votes both Norm and Amy hurt us.
On votes where it didn’t matter, Amy and Norm made no difference.