1 Ericcson wasn't satisfied with losing the House and Senate? Is he Dem tranny or just a dumb fuck?

2 If I recall correctly, it was the completely incompetent and largely corrupt Republican Party "leadership," rather than Erick Erickson, that lost the House and Senate.

I'm not particularly familiar with Erickson's dressing habits, but if you're looking for a fellow with unconventional dressing habits, that's more likely to be our boy Mark "Do I Make You Horny?" Foley.  I think he can shoulder a nice portion of the blame for last year's disaster--along with the Republican "leaders" that let him use the Congressional page program as an escort service for years.

If you're looking for some "dumb fucks," you should start with these idiots: George W, Miers, Brownie, Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney.  You really think ANYTHING Erick Erickson could've done last year could have even compared to the perfect storm of Katrina, Harriet Miers, rampant illegal immigration, Dubai Ports and the K-Street Project?

I imagine Erick would be quite flattered that he's considered that powerful, but the truth is, he isn't that powerful.

If you're looking to place blame for last year's disaster, place it where it belongs--at the feet of the dumb fucks that "LED" THE PARTY to disaster.

And if (likely when) the Party fails to regain control back in 2008, you can again place the blame where it belongs--at the feet of the "leadership."

Our leaders are IDIOTS, Bluto.  It's OK to admit it.  It's cathartic.  Recognition is the first step on the path to recovery.

3 I'm just pasing through today, but I have to say something.  I'm fine with reform inside ALL the political parties, and reform for ALL of the political process we use to elect ALL these dopes!  I am not for turning our own weapons on own side, because of the media enviroment. We might as well surrender if we only sacrifice our own, because we lose either way!                          
                                  USA, all the way !

4 Enough races were so close that every little bit hurt, which I warned you about. You sneered. I blame spoiled, naive operators at blogs for at least parto of this. People who turned their backs on their own country to salve their own petty egos.

5 Michael Weaver, my point exactly.

6 Don't we have enough to do to get rid of the insanely corrupt democrats?

7 Enough races were so close that every little bit hurt, which I warned you about. You sneered. I blame spoiled, naive operators at blogs for at least parto of this. People who turned their backs on their own country to salve their own petty egos.

1.  Why was the election "so close?"  That would be... because... wait, I know this one... it was close because... because we were being LED BY IDIOTS AND CROOKS!

2.  YOU warned ME that we were on track to lose?  Check your facts again.  I was the one doing the warning in the September - November '06 time frame.  I was the one (correctly) warning that the GOP was on track to lose the House.  Go look it up.  no one else wanted to hear it.  You can go look that up, too.  And what happened in November?  What happened in November was almost exactly what I warned everyone was going to happen.  I predicted George Allen would keep his senate seat, and I was wrong about that.  I suppose you probably blame me for Allen's loss, too.
 
3. "Turned their backs on their own country?"  Bluto, you sometimes write wrong things, but I haven't known you to cross the line into the absurd.  But you just did.  To say that Erick Erickson, or Allahpundit, or myself, or anyone else who didn't toe the GOP party line and close ranks behind those corrupt RINOs in Washington somehow "turned their backs on their country," as if we were some sort of online equivalent of the Rosenbergs?  That's just unhinged, man.

In truth, Bluto, you do a disservice to your country with your stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the incredible mess our country is in, the source of that mess and the critical need to clean up that mess as soon as possible.  Despite my conviction on this point, I honestly believe that you do what you do out of some sort of conviction on your part, misguided as it may be, that you are doing what is best for your country.  As much as I seriously disagree with you, and as much as I seriously question your judgment, I have never once insinuated that you carry water for the party apparatus out of some syncophantic need to gain approval of the Party leaders or out of some other sort of self-interest or questionable motive.  I have never once questioned your patriotism or whether you write what you write out of basically noble and honorable motives.  I don't know what's in your heart, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.  Would it be so much to ask for you to afford the rest of us that same basic courtesy?

8 Captialist Infidel sez:
 
Don't we have enough to do to get rid of the insanely corrupt democrats?

Unless you plan to assassinate them or recall them, I'm afraid you're stuck with them for at least the next 20 months.

But if you have a plan to get 'em out before then, I'm all ears.

9 I suppose I should have qualified that.

If you have a legal plan to get them out before then...

10 You misunderstand and misremember, and it seems deliberate to me.

When I spar with someone from my own dojang, I don't go for the knockout. We're all friends you see, with common goals. You don't seem to be capable of criticizing people of your own party without going for the jugular. When someone does that while training in the dojang, they soon find that no one will train with them.

 It seems to me that your only choice is a third party. And that's always a fool's game.

11 Bluto -

I don't accept your hypotheitical because I don't accept that George W Bush, John Boehner, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Roy Blunt and I are all "trainees" in the same "dojo."  If I did, then your hypo would make sense, but we're just not.

As I see it, the difference between you and I is very simple.

I'll attempt to illustrate with three examples:

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't recommend that I refrain from "going for the jugular" against Osama bin Laden--despite the fact that Osama and I are both human beings.  The reason for this is that you and I both agree that Osama bin Laden is not on my "team."  He is not even my "rival."  We do not seek to establish some sort of "human solidarity" with bin Laden. Osama is my enemy, and any tactic or strategy I might employ against him is fair game.  The principle at work is simple: those who work to undermine the very survival of Western Civilization must be stopped.  Agreed?

Similarly, I'm fairly sure you wouldn't recommend that I refrain from "going for the jugular" (at least in the rhetorical sense) against Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan or Dennis Kucinich--despite the fact that we are all Americans.  The reason for this is, again, that we are not really on the same "team."  Although we're not "enemies" in the international law sense, we are definitely "enemies" in the political sense.  I wouldn't hesitate to use whatever legal and quasi-legal means may be necessary to marginalize and discredit any of these individuals, and I expect that I would do so with your enthusiastic approval.  We do not go out of our way to build "American solidarity" with the Moores, Sheehans, and Kucinichs of this nation.  The reason for this is that, although we are fellow citizens in a nominal sense, these individuals are working to destroy the very structure under which we live--i.e., the United States of America.  They have, in a very real sense, "turned their backs on their own country" and their activities threaten to destroy the very foundations of our country.  Again, the principle is the same: those who work to undermine the very survival of Western Civilization must be stopped.

So, if I don't miss my guess, you and I are in almost total agreement as to the first two examples.

Athough you and I agree on how we should treat traitors to our species and traitors to our country, you part company with me on how we should treat traitors to our philosophy and our party.

You are convinced that these individuals should be protected for the good of the Party.  This may be because you are not convinced that these individuals are traitors.  If so, I suggest that you haven't been paying close attention.

For my part, I'm convinced that these individuals must be removed from their positions if the Party, and the nation, is to survive.  The corruption and incompetence of these men are preventing us from getting down to business, and we really do not have forever to come up with a game plan.  Time's a wasting.

Everyone who is paying attention seems to agree that we are locked in a struggle for survival which will last for decades.  The more honest in our ranks acknowledge that after SIX YEARS in the thick of it, we are further behind than when we began.  I could give a damn about one or two elections, and I could give a damn about the political careers of a bunch of money-grubbing professional jokers in Washington--whatever their party affiliation.  And if the Republican Party has ceased to be the party of get your shit straight, kick ass, take names, and protect this nation above all else, I could give a damn about the health of the Republican Party.  This is about survival, and there is no 'do-over' in this game.

If we get to the eve of the '08 elections, and yet ANOTHER huge Republican corruption scandal blows up in our faces and costs us seats (and maybe the White House) because we didn't jettison Boehner and crew earlier, back when we had the chance to do so without serious consequences, I'll definitely be reminding you of these debates we're having right now, about how dedicated you are to making sure we protect these corrupt, treacherous assholes in the name of "party unity."

12 Pandering to the lowest common denominator.

13 I would suggest that if the man is guilty, then we make a bipartisan effort to kick him off our team.
this does 2 things that I can see right away.
1. it shows the Dems that we are willing to get rid of the corrupt politicians on our side of the political spectrum.

2. it may (I HOPE) allow them to reciprocate in kind.  If it doesn't work, then we still win because we've strengthened our party anyway by getting rid of a corrupt politician.
there's too much of a market these days, sadly, for people like JC WATTS and FRED THOMPSON, and SAM BROWNBACK.
we NEED to prune the deadwood!
just my 2 cents..and it may not be worth that much...

14

My hat is off to both Bluto and Ragnar. This is what true patriotic decent is all about. Both of you recognize that a very serious problem exists in the body politic here in the United States. You may not agree on the nature or cause of the problem but you both recognize that the problem exists.

 

It is only through honest open debate such as this that the true nature of the problem will be uncovered and effectively dealt with. This debate has within it an element that I find personally encouraging, that being that both of you sincerely desire to find a resolution to the problem, yet despite your rather profound disagreements regarding the nature and causation of the problem neither of you is willing to digress to the level of the politics of personal destruction.  

 

Reading through your respective posts I find a number of points on both sides that I agree with.

 

Ragnar makes the point,

 

If I recall correctly, it was the completely incompetent and largely corrupt Republican Party "leadership," rather than Erick Erickson, that lost the House and Senate.

 

 

While Bluto counters with.

 

I blame spoiled, naive operators at blogs for at least parto of this. People who turned their backs on their own country to salve their own petty egos.

 

Both hold substantial elements of truth, elements which are not mutually exclusive.

 

Ragnar is correct in that incompetent and largely corrupt leadership lost the House and Senate, however he glosses over the indisputable reality in which people who turned their backs on their own country played a equal part in the equation.

 

Yes Ragnar we must remove from their positions of authority anyone who is either corrupt or incompetent, but Bluto also has a very valid point. We cannot solely place the blame upon those who we through inaction allowed to rise to positions of authority.

 

Each of us must shoulder a portion of the blame, we are a republic and it was us who either through direct action or inaction placed in authority those who have through corruption or incompetence led us to this place we now find ourselves.

 

We must also consider that there is a very real third element in this equation that played a highly significant role, that element is a dishonest and heavily biased media. There can be no doubt that this dishonest and biased media did in fact through a campaign of propaganda and misinformation manipulate a very significant percentage of the voting public.

 

It seems to me that in order to rectify the current dilemma that we find ourselves in three things must happen.

 

As Ragnar points out the corrupt and incompetent politicians must go.
As Bluto points out we the people must step up and take both responsibility and action in our own role in our governance.
The dishonesty and bias of the media must be eliminated.

 

Only when all three of these elements of the political equation are properly addressed will we be able to find the common ground to solve the crises that confronts us.  

 

 

Bluto and Ragnar are also correct in this.

 

Bluto, we do need to be able to confront political opponents without always resorting to the politics of personal destruction, its not always necessary to go for the jugular.
Ragnar, this really is about survival, and there are no do-over’s.

 

 

 

Gentlemen again I applaud your debate as America’s greatest form of patriotism. As long as this great republic still has patriots in it that can engage is such debate there is still hope for this great republic.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834