Focusing conservative energy on the battleground states
Bookworm on Sep 04 2010 at 10:15 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
The Strata-Sphere explains where conservative energy needs to go. (And be patient if the site doesn’t load. Apparently it’s been hinky.) Bottom line: Washington, California and Wisconsin are the Senate races to watch. They could be the real game changers. Here in California, I know that I’m voting for Carly. Are you?
Here’s where the real difficulty lies: getting independents to the polls. Conservatives are galvanized enough to bring in a bunch of Republican/Tea Party victories. However, in the game changing states, the difference may lie with the independents and they, currently, are in “a plague on both your houses” mode. They are disgusted by Obama and the Democrats, but they have no desire to race out and vote for the Republicans.
This passivity actually confounds me. If you’ve come to the point where you think the Democrats are a disaster harming the country, would you just sit there and sneer, and would you do your best to get them out of power? I’m not sure these people are independents. They strike me as spectators.
Related posts:
- Cool blog with news from all fifty states
- A federally funded organization uses 9/11 moment to attack the United States
- The antidote to conservative malaise
Email This Post To A Friend
6 Responses to “Focusing conservative energy on the battleground states”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m not sure “passivity” is the best word. I don’t know what the best word might actually be, but I am fully aware that when the republicans were in charge, up until 2006, they were very nearly as big a shower of jackasses as the democrats have been since.
Granted, it takes the democrat party to come up with and empower a Reid, a Pelosi, a Boxer, a Dodd, a Fwank, a Rangel, a Jackson Lee, a Waxman, a Schumer, a Weiner, a Waters – well, it’s a long, long list of people you wouldn’t allow into your home. Admittedly, they’re in a league of their own for jackassery. Uber-jackasses. Galactic jackasses.
Even at that, given their record it’s hard to be very enthusiastic about the republicans. (I am shocked that Arizonans failed to recognize that John McCain has now reversed enough previously-held positions to firmly establish himself as just another pissant who’ll say anything for the sole purpose of getting elected. At this point I’m about an inch away from hoping his democrat opponent beats him, just because he richly deserves to be beaten for speaking out of all four sides of both faces, and supposing it’s his God-given right to get away with it.)
It’s tough. And it’s past time for term limits on these bastards – all of them.
And maybe we better re-think that “lifetime appointment” stuff for the supreme court, too. It wasn’t widely reported (naturally – why would it be?) that while seeking confirmation in hearings before the senate Sotomayor said she regarded Heller as “settled law.” (Heller affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right of all Americans.) That didn’t stop her, five minutes later, from signing on to Breyer’s vehement dissent in McDonald vs. City of Chicago – so I guess what we got is a wise Latina liar sitting on the highest court. Roger Clemens is in trouble for lying to congress – why isn’t she?
I don’t know if it’s “passivity.” I think a lot of people are beyond sick of the whole thing. It may not be a good reaction, but it’s certainly understandable.
JJ:
I agree with sick of the whole thing, but we’ve now learned that, after bad comes worse. The Republicans were, and probably still are, bad; the Democrats are a disaster, who may be moving beyond mere worse.
As for term limits, I happen to think that voters should be imposing term limits. If enough voters think someone’s a bum, they should get rid of him/her.
One way to encourage term limits in the House of Representatives, if not the Senate, is to do something about the Gerrymandered districts. This will reduce the number of safe districts. Moreover, by forcing Congressmen to be more accountable to their constituents, reducing Gerrymandering will diminish political polarization in Congress. It is no accident that 16 of the 20 most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts are bastions of the Democratic Party.
http://www.slate.com/id/2208216/slideshow/2208554/fs/0//entry/2208555/
Agreed on the gerrymandering. I’d like to see a law that required all districts to be along straight lines – sort of in the same fashion as they used to determine Sections in the new West. If your area got more densely populated, each political “section” would be divided into a half section, or a quarter section etc. But all along straight lines – none of the incredible carving out of districts by population concentration.
Of course, then you have districts where the Feds come in and tell you that you can split your votes so that you can place six votes for one person if you want – just so a minority can be represented. And never mind if the minority can’t legally vote – after all, representatives have to represent the non-voters as well.
Law apply as convenient.
I agree on McCain. Although his primary opponent wasn’t any kind of an improvement, I think. It really bothers me – because I admire McCain for what he did as a POW. And I do think he came back with principles – but somehow, I think he’s just managed to slide around his principles so much that he doesn’t seem to have any any more. His big “thing” is being a maverick – and that means that he bucks his own team. There’s just something intrinsically wrong with that. Not that someone should _always_ and without question support his team – but when being a _maverick_ means that you _must_ take the opposite side in order to preserve your reputation…there’s something definitely wrong.
The key to identifying whether a GOP candidate should be supported or defeated:
How did they vote on Obama Care? And what were their statements AT THE TIME about Obama Care?
How did they vote on Cap and Trade? And what were their statements AT THE TIME about Cap And Trade?
How did they vote on Global Warming? And what were their statements AT THE TIME about Global Warming?
How did they vote on the TARP bailout “emergency”? And what were their statements AT THE TIME about the bailout?
What is their position on earmarks, and on “bringing home the bacon” to their citizenry, vs the need to reduce the size of the government, and limit national government spending?
By this standard, no we do NOT support Mike Castle, just because Delaware is liberal. The man is not a conservative, and you do not hold your nose and vote for him. You vote for his conservative opponent, because she represents the values you cherish. Christine McDonnell gets the vote, unless something else in her life or record disqualifies her. Lisa Murkowski just lost to Miller in Alaska because of too many liberal votes, and, apparently, for boasting repeatedly about being able to “bring home the bacon”. Amazing that her Republican voters deserted her on the pork issue! There’s hope yet!
McCain never met a liberal environmental program he didn’t praise, I don’t think. Lindsey Graham is quite the piece of work, too.
There’s information out there on Christine McDonnell (Mike Castle’s GOP primary opponent in Delaware), some of which supports her candidacy, some of which makes her appear unsuitable for office. I myself could never support in any way Mike Castle – he voted FOR cap and trade, and while he voted against Obama-Care, he made lots of noises about supporting it and only voted against it at the very last minute. But at this point I could not contribute to her campaign either.
The GOP hasn’t yet indicated in any way that it deserves to take over either or both houses of Congress in 2010. We could win that battle, and then lose the overall war because of it. Winning the battle only as a result to lose the war… Remember the law of unintended consequences. It may be the truth that the American People require another two years of hell on earth under far-left Democrat rule for us to be able to save this country. If the GOP is not yet ready and the American People are not yet ready.
We could undo two more years of hellish damage to this country. If the GOP won and then screwed it up within two or four years themselves, we could be looking at a further twenty years of hellish damage. I don’t know the truth of it, but I do know that 2010 is not NECESSARILY the be-all and end-all of electoral politics, when it comes to saving our country.