RALLY REPORT - Kaloogian and Tancredo ROCK Republican Convention in California!

Howard Kaloogian for U.S. Senate ^ | 02/22/2004 | Me

[calcowgirl]

There were some great articles in the LA Times about Kaloogian... Feb 23 comes to mind.

Has Howard thought of getting permission to repost those on his website? Just a thought.

I didn't post because a) they were a couple days old and b) I would have had to excerpt the LA Times (and there was to much great content... I couldn't decide! lol)

[GOP_1900AD]

I could care less about a "3:1 gang up" or whatever. I simply want there to be more open discussion regarding the direction of the GOP. I want there to be a definitive discussion and unity emerging from the national convention. Essentially, I am no longer willing to tolerate all this divisive BS that has sent people packing for the Constitution Party and other splinters. I am also deeply concerned regarding the acceptance of overt liberalism into party doctrine. If the GOP is going to truly unite, then that means two things. Firstly, those of you promoting the current orthodoxy need to grit your teeth, hold you noses, and move yourselves to the Right. Secondly, those booing Bush, leaving to vote Constitution, or saying they'll sit out the election need to undergo the same teeth gritting and nose holding, and rejoin us. Debates such as these *can* be constructive if we have big rules that when the brass tacks are down later this year, we will support the GOP slate.

[GOP_1900AD]

Personally I would not have booed, and agree that it was not called for. But in turn, let's not automatically label anyone who questions the Bush policies, in a more gentlemanly fashion than booing or attack dog style epithets, as a traitor, liberal, Communist or fascist. Don't you think that at least *some* of those who are frustrated with Bush might be good old party faithful, and therefore, folks whose "voice of the customer" data needs to be collected? The end goal is GOP effectiveness and an unambiguous distinction of the rightist position. Elsewhere, I've seen descriptions of the notion that we will lose any "bidding war" with the Left on topics of socialized government "entitlements." Correct! We *must* be a clear alternative, not a "me too but going there more slowly."

[GOP_1900AD]

BTW a couple of other things. Firstly you are a legend in your own mind regarding your supposed "decisively" proving me wrong - in those cases you appear to allude to, an impasse was reached and we agreed to disagree either explicitly or de facto. Secondly, I am really tired of all your class warfare BS - by any measure I fit right in with those who, by and large, make up the so called "elites." So in terms of class, I am one of those who might be envied by the less fortunate. This points all the more to the rigor of process, rather than pull of personal financial interests, which has led me to my set of Burkian beliefs. You might note with interest that I have long been striving to remove onorous government regulations regarding micromanagement of the workplace, so called diversity, and other farcical initiatives. The burden of a growing raft of federal, state and local laws must be reduced overall. So, any assertion that I am some "class warrior" or somehow personally envious of the so called "wealthy" is complete horse droppings.

[Poohbah]

I could care less about a "3:1 gang up" or whatever. I simply want there to be more open discussion regarding the direction of the GOP.

I simply prefer to win elections at this point; we need to overhaul the judiciary, and a GOP supermajority in the Senate are crucial to accomplishing this.

Essentially, I am no longer willing to tolerate all this divisive BS that has sent people packing for the Constitution Party and other splinters.

Your preferred solution being, of course, a nice Stalinist purge.

Firstly, those of you promoting the current orthodoxy need to grit your teeth, hold you noses, and move yourselves to the Right.

I'm the conservative guy who worked on campaigns with less-than-perfectly conservative candidates. I'm the guy who got backstabbed by self-appointed "true conservatives"--your buddies--during those campaigns.

I've given up on trying to build coalitions of the unwilling. Your ilk routinely work to throw elections to the Democrats--and they sometimes use GOP walking-around money to do it!

Break them of this nasty habit, and they might get listened to in 10 years or so. Until then, I see no particular reason to beg for their votes. They've never delivered a damn thing, but they sure demand a lot in return for doing nothing.

Bottom line: earning 1 vote from your faction costs more than one vote elsewhere.

I've supported Republicans whose ideas were to the right of my own. I have learned, the hard way, that such support does not get reciprocated later on.

Secondly, those booing Bush, leaving to vote Constitution, or saying they'll sit out the election need to undergo the same teeth gritting and nose holding, and rejoin us.

Their decision. They've opted for irrelevancy long enough that the GOP feels its safe to ignore them. 2002 indicates that such an approach is correct.

Debates such as these *can* be constructive if we have big rules that when the brass tacks are down later this year, we will support the GOP slate.

In other words, you're saying that in the real world, here and now, these debates are largely useless.

Your side of the aisle--the hard right--has made itself largely irrelevant to the GOP by doing exactly that which you decry. I oppose wasting money, resources, and the most valuable coin of all--trust--on these folks until they actually start delivering votes reliably.

Frankly, it's going to take a few elections of just shutting up and pushing 100% for candidates you disagree with, and getting damn little in return. If your ilk hadn't squandered their political capital on various temper-tantrums, efforts to split the conservative vote and elect liberal nutballs, and generally demanding the contempt of the GOP, that wouldn't be necessary. But they did all that, and they now get to enjoy the consequences of their decisions. And you get to go along for the ride, because you choose your friends unwisely.

[GOP_1900AD]

For emphasis: "We cannot sweep the issues among us, under the carpet. We need a frank and open debate, in which the issues are analyzed in depth, and the grass-roots of the party make a rational rather than a forced decision."

[Poohbah]

BTW a couple of other things. Firstly you are a legend in your own mind regarding your supposed "decisively" proving me wrong - in those cases you appear to allude to, an impasse was reached and we agreed to disagree either explicitly or de facto. Secondly, I am really tired of all your class warfare BS - by any measure I fit right in with those who, by and large, make up the so called "elites."

You really shouldn't accuse others of being a legend in their own mind, sonny boy.

So in terms of class, I am one of those who might be envied by the less fortunate.

Son, with respect to class...you have none.

. You might note with interest that I have long been striving to remove onorous government regulations regarding micromanagement of the workplace, so called diversity, and other farcical initiatives.

But your first demand is for more and more onerous government regulation and micromanagement, not less--you just prefer some forms of onerous government regulation and micromanagement to others, particularly if you can inflict it on someone other than yourself.

So, any assertion that I am some "class warrior" or somehow personally envious of the so called "wealthy" is complete horse droppings.

Scott McNealy is extremely wealthy. He hates and envies Bill Gates, who is also extremely wealthy.

It boils down to McNealy not liking to lose out, particularly to someone he believes to be an intellectual inferior.

Scott bought and paid for a political prosecution of his class enemy.

You wish to do likewise to your class enemies. Perhaps you are annoyed that people who you believe to be intellectually or socially inferior is out-competing you in the marketplace. But it comes out as class warfare rhetoric.

[GOP_1900AD]

Where do you get that my first demand is for more and more onerous regs? Just because I happen to promote some focussed and narrow tightening regarding trade with the Communists? Look at the '64 platform on that topic. Other than that one area, I say, let the market decide. Oh, and while we're at it, let's nuke the notion that public servants (including those working in government schools) can either organize into unions or go on strike - both should be crushed. Abolish the Dept of Education as well. Abolish the EPA and let the states regulate all that. Also, any tax payer aid to the World Bank, IMF and the UN must be stopped. OPIC is racketeering and ought to be thusly prosecuted. All of this is strictly Burkian. By the way, what are your thoughts about Burke's philosophy?

As for your calling me son, well, let's not go there, since I don't believe in undertaking competitions regarding degree of grey hair or baldness.

Finally, you are not my class enemy. Not only do I lack class enemies entirely, but also, you are certainly not my enemy in any way, since apparently you are an American and I presume also part of the GOP!

[Poohbah]

Not only do I lack class

There we go: the entirety of truth in your post.

[tame]

Maybe you should, since you seem to talk out of yours. But that's no surprise, since your head's jammed so far up it you need a Plexiglas windown in your stomach to see where you're going.

Uh-oh, PoohPooh goes from being TESTY to showing an unusual interest in my behind! Don't get your hopes up PoohPooh.

You'll have to take it to a bath house if you want to focus on testiculars and rumps...Pewwww Poooooooh.

[tame]

my way or f***ing else

Intimidating vocabulary, poohpooh....if your 27 promotions shy of and idiot.

[tame]

My philosophy: vote for Bill Jones in the primary

Your philosophy: demented.

What's to debate beyond that?

Um...your ability to think a cogent thought, maybe? Don't hurt yourself.

[tame]

please explain why anyone--no matter what their stance on immigration--should trust Tancredo one iota.

They should because YOU don't. BTW...Iota...hmmm, fluent in Greek, too, huh?

[Poohbah]

I don't trust people who break their promises. Tancredo has done exactly that.

So why should you believe him, just because he says what you wish to hear? If he will not honor the one promise, what makes you think he'll honor any other?

[Poohbah]

Your philosophy: demented.

Uh-huh.

What's your philosophy for the general election if Kaloogian does not get the nomination? Who will you vote for?

[Poohbah]

You're the one showing an unusual degree of interest in homoerotic connotaions, not me. I'm just describing--fairly--your lack of moral character. I am flamingly heterosexual, as the Fetching Mrs. Poohbah can attest. Is it possible for you to make three consecutive posts to me without expressing some degree of subconscious (and sick) homosexual desire?

[tame]

You're the one showing an unusual degree of interest in homoerotic connotaions, not me.

Oh, you again, poohpooh.

Well, it's not me who brings up A$$ and testiculars on a regular basis outside of calling you on it.

just describing--fairly--your lack of moral character.

YOU speaking to me about moral character is like John Kerry lecturing President Bush on Patriotism. Or a drug trafficer lecturing my mother about the evils of caffeine...Mr. testicular...BWAHAHAHAHA.

I am flamingly heterosexual, as the Fetching Mrs. Poohbah can attest.

PLEASE, quit talking to me about your sex life. I'm not interested.

Is it possible for you to make three consecutive posts to me without expressing some degree of subconscious (and sick) homosexual desire?

Like I said before, don't get your hopes up with sex talk. You should direct that last question right back at poohpooh.

What's your philosophy for the general election if Kaloogian does not get the nomination? Who will you vote for?

My philosophy is pick the right frickin' person in the nomination process IN THE FIRST PLACE, rather than listen to some Rino talk us out of it, then we have a great choice later. At the general election I always pick the best choice, and that won't be a leftist. I don't vote for leftists no matter what their political party.

[tame]

BTW, not that Bill Jones is a leftist, but if I recall correctly he DID endorse McCain which makes him lukewarm at best.

[Poohbah]

My philosophy is pick the right frickin' person in the nomination process IN THE FIRST PLACE, rather than listen to some Rino talk us out of it, then we have a great choice later.

Fine. You don't get your way in the primary, so...

At the general election I always pick the best choice, and that won't be a leftist. I don't vote for leftists no matter what their political party.

Then you have no claim on the GOP whatsoever, and no claim to being part of the "base." A wise GOP strategist would simply discount your vote at the outset, because you are unreliable. This means, in turn, the following:

1. Your issues will not get any sort of hearing unless the candidate is feeling generous--or, as some political strategists would put it, "if he's feeling really stupid that morning."

   By the political strategist's calculus, Bush has been extremely stupid, giving conservatives much of what they want even after they backstabbed him in 2000. Time will tell if the "My way or f***ing else" conservatives respond positively to Bush's outreach--or if they will remain true to form.

2. You will never actually accomplish anything you want accomplished. Some self-described "true conservatives" think that being ineffective is a badge of honor. It isn't. It's being ineffective.

3. You will wonder why the Senate doesn't confirm conservative judges. That's because there aren't enough Republicans to overcome a filibuster...because you and your ilk decided that abstract principle was far more important than concrete accomplishment.

All of that is your option. But please do not complain about it--or about the GOP--when it happens. When you make a choice, you freely choose to accept all of the consequences of that choice. Being frozen out of the political process is the consequence of your choice. Whining about that consequence merely shows you to be less mature than my six-year-old daughter.

[tame]

Spoken like a true Rino who is not the brightest bulb in the box.