Posted on 05/11/2010 6:39:03 PM PDT by Al B.
(CNN) – A prominent conservative is issuing an ultimatum, essentially telling the candidate he supports to do better in the polls – or lose his support.
Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief of RedState.com, backs Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in the California Republican senate primary. DeVore is locked in a battle with former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and former Rep. Tom Campbell for the right to face Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer in November.
Speaking Tuesday with CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, Erickson – a CNN contributor - said he won't support DeVore much longer if the candidate does not improve his political standing.
"Look, if Chuck DeVore hasn't gone up in the polls within two weeks significantly, I'll be with Carly Fiorina because Tom Campbell is that bad," Erickson said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Well, I would imagine that some of those Packards will probably chase Fiorina until the day that those same Packards croak on their own ... :-)
For internal company squabbles and family spats... usually I stay out of those things... and try not to get hit with the shrapnel ...
A “yes” or “no” answer will suffice. If he wished to explain the yes or no, I’d love to hear it....
You're not going to get a yes or no answer here ... :-) ... but here is some answer ...
And I "get on this" -- more than a lot of things -- just because I've followed the issue from way back in the 90s...
The text of his rebuttal statement ...
To go back to the previous question though, I think it's very important what's going on in Afghanistan. It's very important that we understand that the Taliban and Al Qaeda does not present an existential threat to the United States. [emphasis is his]
They don't have an industrial base; they don't have armies. They're terrorists. Now, because of the fact that Afghanistan has no means of national support for a large army -- where is the end-game? [emphasis his] Are you proposing that we just stay in Afghanistan until they develop a modern economy and a modern democracy?
For Heaven's sakes, their constitution was drafted by the French as part of the NATO mission and it envisions a strong central government which is inimical to Afghan culture and tradition. I'm an intelligence officer. I'm a lieutenant colonel. I've studied this issue. We need to kill our enemies. [emphasis his] We don't need to build a modern nation-state where one cannot exist for a hundred years.
It's as I've said before... this is nothing but the same lame type of thinking that existed prior to the 9/11 attack.
Take a look at it this way. They didn't have a modern army back before 9/11 either. They didn't have the national support for a large army back then either, prior to 9/11. They weren't a modern nation-state back then, prior to 9/11 either.
BUT, in spite of that, they did great damage to the U.S. and it's economy and caused us to bring our own full military power to bear -- and we're still bringing it to bear now.
Chuck DeVore wants to act like a liberal and "cut and run" from the way I see it. And he's using the "justification" to do it -- that "they don't have an army; they can't support an army; they are not a modern nation-state" ... and by saying "where is the end-game" ... he's proposing the "cut-and-run" solution that we all have heard about from the Marxist/Leftists/Liberals... except that now -- Chuch DeVore is one of them ...
Sure, just like the Democrats... "kill our enemies" ... yeah sure ... LOL ...
I'm guessing that the next thing you'll hear from Chuck DeVore is "Don't forget to read them their miranda rights, too ... :-) ...
Nope, we don't need any more liberals in dealing with terrrorists -- taking a seat in the United States Senate... stay home, Chuck DeVore...
Also, as I said in Post #27 ...
Well, I see that's the problem that certain types like DeVore have. Before 9/11 there were a lot of "supposition" about Al Qaeda and what could happen in the way of a major terrorist attack. I know as I followed it back then in the late 90s and all the way up to 9/11. And I'm seeing and hearing the same "pre-9/11 rhetoric" now ... once again ...
A lot of people back then dismissed things too ... until the "facts came in" -- those "facts" are now called "9/11" ...
Well, we don't need anyone waiting for those "facts" like 9/11 to arrive, before they will treat things like the Taliban and Al Qaeda as existential threats (as the Bush Administration had no problem doing and they did treat them as existential threats; unlike this Obama Administration and unlike Chuck DeVore).
Sorry, I'm going to go on what is the supposition from known experience that we've already had in the past ... and I'm not waiting for the "facts" of a nuked metropolitan area to "confirm the theory" ...
Chuck DeVore can stay out of the Senate with the attitude that the Taliban and Al Qaeda represent no existential threat to the United States. I don't want to have to be telling him the "facts" of a nuked city -- after it happens ...
And as I said in Post #13
That is nothing but pre-9/11 "thinking" that got us into this trouble in the first place ... thinking that they were no threat to us... yeah! until they did that on 9/11 ... hoo-boy!
And yet again, it's exactly this type of "thinking" that Chuck DeVore exhibits here, that will lead to the next major attack on the United States by either the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any of the Muslim terrorists working out of that general region.
The Bush Administration made a real point of that (i.e., the threat being very real and existential) ... and we could be talking about weapons of mass destruction, like biological, affecting millions upon millions of people, or nukes, taking about two or three or four major metropolitan areas.
But, even if they did take out three major metropolitan areas, at once, with nukes -- would that cause the U.S. to cease to exist... nope! However, it would exist in a radically different world, afterwards -- just like that radically different world after 9/11.
Apparently some people want to have that happen first -- before they perceive an "existential threat" to the U.S. -- it sure sounds like "pre-9/11 thinking" to me... and so, I think that's a sure sign that many have slipped back into that disinterested thinking of pre-9/11...
And if we've got this guy, Chuck DeVore in that pre-9/11 thinking too... as evidenced by what he just said -- then we don't need him in the U.S. Senate, at all.
Fiorina thinks the Internet should be regulated by the government.
Well..., I presume that you're talking about "Net Neutrality" and that may be the "freedom of speech" issue for the Internet -- in keeping everything "as it was originally created" on the Internet -- all packets of information treated the same and not discriminated against -- as some are attempting to do, and have already done.
It may very well turn out that by allowing companies to carve up "sections" of the Internet, into specialized services, part of which get "priority treatment" (because of getting more money for those specialized services that they designate, themselves) and leaving other Internet services in the backwater -- that even places like Free Republic can very well be "cut out" of either priority treatment (through those businesses providing "access") and/or simply not accessible at all, because Free Republic does not "pay for" specialized access to their own customer base or through their own specialized "portals" on the Internet.
The Internet should be left the way it was originally in that all packets get equal treatment, and that one simply pays for the bandwidth that they use (usually in an unlimited fashion, but charged at different prices for higher and higher levels of service, i.e. increasing bandwidth means increasing prices). And that billing scheme is just fine.
But, when certain packets of Internet "information" is blocked because of it's "content" -- that's what Net Neutrality is all about -- in making sure that no packets are blocked or interfered with, no matter where they come from or what the "information" is. That's "freedom of speech" for the Internet, in insuring that -- which is what I see "Net Neutrality" as being about ...
For the protection of women and children or some such nonsense, right?
Well, the "issue" is (I think that's what is being spoken about here ...) "Net Neutrality" -- which has nothing to do with "women and children" ... LOL ...
As an issue apart from Fiorina, it's a valid one and it involves (what I think of it, anyway) as a "freedom of speech" protection for the Internet in that the Internet won't be "blocked" and "carved up" into sections and to get into those specialized sections, you will have to pay more (or to gain access to certain customers "corraled" by certain businesses -- you have to pay those businesses more money to gain access to those "customers" (namely someone like you who simply has "Internet access" and that's all) -- or else you can't access other websites and/or Internet services.
I think that these Internet services (all the packets of information) should not be treated any differently -- the one from the other -- no matter what the "services" are that they represent or the "information" inside those packets. All that should be "collected" by the business and "paid for" by the consumer -- is basically the amount of bandwidth that they are using.
If you have a higher usage of bandwidth, you pay more... that's easy and simple. But, don't discriminate on the basis of "what information you receive" on the Internet. That's the "freedom of speech" protection on the Internet that I'm talking about, anyway ... :-) ...
Well, she ran HP into the ground and that’s her claim to fame. Other than that she’s a common Big Government statist/feminist RINO.
First, pissant is here to promote his Falcon Party of 67 members.
Does he get a free car to drive, too ... LOL ... just wondering ... :-)
But, "67 members" ... now that's a "force to contend with" isn't it ...
Are you pushing that garbage?
This is what has snuffed him; he threatens to throw his support to Campbell. So much for his ‘conservative’ credentials.
Oh Really?!! Hmmm... that's extremely telling. If that is what Chuck DeVore is doing, it would seem that he is definitely playing the role of the spoiler...
Once again ...
This is what has snuffed him; he threatens to throw his support to Campbell. So much for his ‘conservative’ credentials.
It ends with
"Damn the electric fence
Damn the electric fence."
I kind of thought it was appropriate here.....and it's actually almost noon!
:-)
Pissant has ALWAYS promoted rock-ribbed Reagan Conservatism here, and I dare say he always will. His position remains unchanged since before the Falcon Party, and therefore, your comment is disingenuous.
Secondly, we are conservatives first here on FR.
And no one is more "Conservative first" than pissant.
However, the GOP is the Party by which conservatives are elected.
That is no longer true.
UGH, Jim. Lousy word. You think he talked her into endorsing Fiorina?
Ummmm..., if Sarah Palin is a whore, then what are my two US Senators ... Senator James Inhofe and Senator Tom Coburn -- butt-monkeys? LOL ...
March 5, 2010
Fellow Conservatives:
This November, California will have an opportunity to call Barbara Boxer home and send a new conservative leader to the United States Senate. That new leader is Carly Fiorina. We are proud to endorse her as a fellow conservative who has real-¬‐world business experience and the guts and moxie to take on Barbara Boxer and win.
Carly is not a Washington insider. She is a proven business leader who understands the economy and advocates a strong national defense. And, she is a tough fiscal and social conservative who:
Democrats fear Carly more than any other candidate in the Republican primary. That’s why Barbara Boxer has been using Carly’s name in fundraising letters for nearly two years, while the California Democratic Party employs two full-time staffers to follow Carly around the state, and why numerous union-funded groups have launched independent expenditure efforts attacking her.
Carly Fiorina worked her way through undergraduate and graduate school, majoring in medieval history at Stanford University and earning two graduate business degrees from the University of Maryland and MIT. A self-made woman, Carly started her business career as a secretary and went on to become the first and, to date, the only woman to lead a Fortune 20 company, serving as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Hewlett-Packard Company. Most recently, Carly served on the Defense Business Board advising the U.S. Secretary of Defense on overall management of the department and as Director of Business Executives for National Security.
As conservative leaders in the United States Senate, we know you can count on the principled leadership of Carly Fiorina. We are confident that she will stand with us and stand up for you against the liberal special interests that have kept Barbara Boxer in Washington for almost 28 years.
This is a golden opportunity for the people of the Golden State to come together to elect Carly to represent them in the United States Senate. Please join us in supporting Carly’s campaign.
Sincerely,
TOM COBURN, M.D.
U.S. Senator (R-OK)
JAMES INHOFE
U.S. Senator (R-OK)
JON KYL
U.S. Senator (R-AZ)
Dupes, at best.
Well, just between you and me and Rintense, I will support Palin fully if she wins the nomination. But I can’t tell the kneecappers - they’ll think I’m going squishy. LOL
Ummmm..., I think that's what they have FReepmail for ... LOL ...
My magnifying glass is right here beside me ... :-)
Here's what it says ...
The GOP battle to face incumbent US Senator Democrat Barbara Boxer in November remains essentially unchanged. Today, former Congressman Tom Campbell defeats former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, 35% to 24%. State assembly member Chuck DeVore gets 15%. Limited movement since SurveyUSA's previous poll. 23% are undecided: Among men, Campbell had led by 8 points, now leads by 12; among women, Campbell had led by 5, now 10. DeVore is up 5 points among voters age 18 to 49, Campbell is down 5, Fiorina is down 10. Among voters age 50+, Campbell is up 6. In California's Inland Empire, Fiorina had led by 6 points, now trails by 5. Campbell's lead in the Bay Area is now smaller, but his lead in greater Los Angeles is now larger.
That 15% by DeVore is the same 15% that I saw in another article I posted recently.
Now, what we're talking about here is ...
Campbell - 35% Fiorina - 24% DeVore - 15% Undecided - 23%
It doesn't look very good to me, considering the fact that people are already voting, right now, in California.
Why don’t you go trolling for statists somewhere else. We fight for conservatives and conservatism here on FR. RINO pushing trolls make me want to puke.
Are you pushing that garbage?
And good morning! I thought I was the only one who woke up in the middle of the night (it's now about 4:15 AM here ... :-) ...).
But, in regards to Net Neutrality, I see it as keeping "freedom of speech" on the Internet, intact and not interfered with.
Some have considered it as a way to prevent some companies from legitimately billing for "bandwidth" but that's not the problem. Any company can bill for whatever amount of money that they want to charge for bandwidth that the customer uses. With my ISP, it's billed in increments, stepping up to higher and higher bandwidth (about four levels) and that's fine and we're not talking about any "regulation" of prices or bandwidth amounts or whatever to charge for that. So, that's not the issue for me.
But, the issue is the blocking of services on the Internet, instead of letting all services go out, regardless of content. There are "content filters" at some companies to block certain services, or else, to "clamp down" (on speed related to that service).
I'm saying, "Let all services go through, regardless of the type of service, or what the packet is or the information contained in the packet." Just charge for the bandwidth used... that's all.
That's the "freedom of speech" on the Internet that I'm talking about.
Turns out you’re noting but a big government statist yourself. No wonder you love that bitch.
Well, it was something that I thought Sarah Palin and my two US Senators, Senator James Inhofe and Senator Tom Coburn were doing ... standing up for conservative values ...
If even just those people not doing it... then we’re never going to “govern” in the U.S. Senate and have control over the Democrats and get things done for conservatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.