I have two main priorities that are tempered by the state we're in. Not of politics, but of Washington.
First, I have to remind myself that Washington is as deep, dark blue as downtown Moscow. Barack Obama will win Washington State in the upcoming election.
The top of the ticket is incredibly weak in this state (Many reading this, for example, couldn't begin to tell you the name of what's his face running against Cantwell) and, frankly, few of the rank and file give a damn about another multi-millionaire white boy trying to buy himself the White House.
And let's face it: without his money, no one would have ever heard of Mitt Romney, and he would have been out of this race before Bachman if he didn't have the ability to self-fund, one of the biggest reasons why he can't get conservative backing.
Romney's ear has more tin in it then the Tin Man in Wizard of Oz.
Second, to do everything I legally can to make sure Ron Paul doesn't get spit.
That said, I believe that Santorum's actions, wherein he aligned with the cult candidate here in Washington State increased Paul's standing and decreased his own, because he sold out principle in the name of an abortive effort at winning.
See, for me, unlike so many of my colleagues, I ascribe to the old axiom that "it's not only if you win or lose... it's also how you play the game."
Paul is dangerous. His absolutely bizarre foreign policy views disqualify him from ever being president; he knows he never will BE president; he brings out a dangerous element in the American political scene, an element reminiscent of the thought process involved in the formulation of the Third Reich.
In short, Paul has no chance, ever, to get into the White House. Santorum has a SLIGHTLY better chance. So, he makes a deal with the devil, designed entirely to deny Romney a few delegates from Washington State. He aligned with someone he claims he does not agree with and winds up with a delegate count where he manages to come in behind Paul... a feat, to date, only accomplished (and then rarely) by Newt Gingrich.
So, a system that is designed to achieve an outcome reflective of the GOP electorate as a whole winds up with a result where the outcome bears not even a passing resemblance to that electorate as a whole.
This is a result of the manipulation of a system that begs to be manipulated. And, as I said, I give mad props to the Paulbots for showing up and their organization for deluding so many people into believing, apparently, that Paul is sane.
I don't share that view.
So, Clark County sends a delegate make up to the state level convention that doesn't even bear a slight resemblance to the political reality of the make up of this area: Paul has the most delegates when he would be lucky to get 10% of the vote of this county's GOP and 2.5% of this county as a whole.
Santorum's inability to fight this battle on his own kills any support I had for this man, a man who was SUPPOSED to be of principle, integrity and fortitude... but who, at the end of the day, would sell his soul to the devil to get elected... and who, having done so, will have nothing to show for it... Except the likely death of any future chance he may have had at the office as a result.
Since the anonymous poster asked.
Kelly,
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand many of the statements you have made here. Could you please help by being a little more specific on some of them for me?
You said, “..I believe that Santorum's actions, wherein he aligned with the cult candidate here in Washington State increased Paul's standing and decreased his own, because he sold out principle in the name of an abortive effort at winning.”
What principles did Santorum sell out and in what way did he do so?
You said, “..Paul is dangerous.. he brings out a dangerous element in the American political scene, an element reminiscent of the thought process involved in the formulation of the Third Reich.”
Can you explain to me the Paulian thought processes which are reminiscent of the Third Reich?
You said, “So, he [Santorum] makes a deal with the devil, designed entirely to deny Romney a few delegates from Washington State.”
Three questions here: First are you referring to Paul as the devil Santorum made the deal with or are you speaking literally of the Biblical Devil. If the former, can you tell me what Paul has done to qualify for that title? If the latter, I know of no way for you to have knowledge of such a deal unless informed directly by Santorum or the devil himself. So can you tell me—was it the devil himself who informed of such a deal? (I very much doubt Santorum would tell you of deals he is making with the devil.)
As a point of information you may not be aware of, the deal made between the Santorum and Paul camps was not designed to deny Romney a few delegates from Washington. It was designed; first, to deny Romney ANY delegates from Clark County and to that end they were completely successful; and, second, to stop him from getting any delegates from the State Convention. The result there is yet to be determined.
You said, “So, a system that is designed to achieve an outcome reflective of the GOP electorate as a whole winds up with a result where the outcome bears not even a passing resemblance to that electorate as a whole.”
Can you explain that to me? All that I have seen indicates that the majority of the GOP electorate does not want Romney to be the Presidential Nominee and that fact is reflected in the delegation from Clark County. Isn’t it?
Later, Kelly
SWM
What principles did Santorum sell out?
ReplyDeleteHere's one:
SANTORUM: And finally, I would be working openly with the state of Israel and I would be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes – and make it very public that we are doing that. [...]
Paul on Iran:
At a campaign stop here, Paul reiterated his position that sanctions on Iran are "an act of war," a message he delivered at other stops in the Hawkeye State this week. "If we were prohibited from having imports into this country, we would consider it an act of war," he said. "The best way to think about this is the golden rule. If we don't want somebody to do it to us, we shouldn't do it to them."
Can't have it both ways. Paul's positions risk a lot of us, here, getting killed. While Santorum is correct on Iran, by aligning himself with Paul, he, in fact, sold out.
Third Reich:
Paul's inability to face reality in the foreign policy sphere is reminiscent of those who helped Hitler to power believing that once he achieved said power, they could control him.
Most who are devout Paul followers know as much about the reality of the situation in the world today as they do brain surgery. Paul's sound bytes are simplistic, frequently inaccurate, and show a complete lack of knowledge of the people and the mind set of those in the region... people who would cheerfully kill you, and themselves in the effort if that's what it takes.
I am referring to Paul as "the devil" in this colloquialism. I don't bring religion into politics.
What has Paul done?
His incessant and ignorant yammering on foreign policy issues that he knows absolutely nothing about could get us dead.
Dead, Stephen... without any do overs. In that respect, he's as dangerous as the empty suit in the White House right now.
I stated what it was designed for, and let me restate it here: it was designed to have those who disagree with the Paul/Santorum ticket silenced, because the Paulbots believe their way is the only way and everyone else has it wrong.
Congrats. You achieved your also-Nazi-like goal of silencing those opposing you.
Well done.
Let me help you with that, Stephen:
While Romney, who I am not enamored of by any sense of the word, has not achieved a GOP majority, in comparison to either Paul or Santorum, he's achieved an overwhelming lead in both popular vote and delegates. If the GOP were to vote today in Clark County, Paul would be flattened.
You would silence those people... both here, and nationally, in a futile gesture to give what amounts to, IMHO, a whack job a speech at the national convention.
And no, Stephen: what's reflected in Clark County is that NO ONE in the GOP in Clark County wants Romney. And as much as I disagree with Romney, I disagree with silencing his supporters even more.
Silencing.
A cold-blooded word. With the most horrific connotations.
And frankly, if Romney had accomplished the same end as Paul, I would say the same about him.
The irony of all of this is that if push came to shove, those that helped Paul the most... the Santorum followers and Santorum himself, would be tossed under the nearest bus as soon and as often as possible.
What happened in the convention was not the development of a voice for the GOP in this county... which is, as I understand it, the primary purpose. It was the rather brilliant manipulation of the typically flawed GOP system that allowed it. And, as I said, exploiting the system in place is where the Paul campaign gets mad props.
But on the scale of right and wrong?
That's a no-brainer.
Come by any time, Steve.
Hi, Just a Guy
ReplyDeleteI am assuming that you are Kelly. If I am wrong please correct me.
In any case, back to the subject at hand. As to the matter Santorum’s sell out of principle, I took your not-too-articulate comments to imply that Santorum had violated some principle of politics of fairness in allowing his supporters to craft the Open Convention Slate. After-all, it was not until then that he lost your respect for him. If that was not what you meant then, alas, you have been misunderstood, again. I guess that’s my fault—I’m sorry.
You are correct that there are sharp differences between Santorum’s foreign policy views and Paul’s. But you are not correct in concluding that simply by forming a coalition with Paul supporters for the purpose of forcing an open convention, that Santorum has in some way given himself over to Paul’s views on foreign policy or anything else. Kelly, you have been around politics long enough to know that such limited coalitions are part and parcel of the process and are commonly formed without either party(s) to the union adopting the views of the other party(s). Your pretense to the contrary is disingenuous to say the least.
As to Paul, “..getting us dead..”, calm down a little. Take a deep breath and re-read the part you wrote about Paul never being elected to the White House. You were right about that—and so he is unlikely to do anything to get us dead. Neither is myself and other Santorum supporters working with Paul’s supporters to assure an open convention going to get anybody hurt. (Unless maybe some panic-prone person like yourself has a coronary attack out of fear that they are not going to succeed in closing the convention down to any voices outside the Establishment Republicans.)
You wrote, “…[the open Convention Slate] was designed to have those who disagree with the Paul/Santorum ticket silenced, because the Paulbots believe their way is the only way and everyone else has it wrong… Congrats. You achieved your also-Nazi-like goal of silencing those opposing you… Silencing ...A cold-blooded word. With the most horrific connotations.”
Okay, Kelly, once again you need to calm down. Wanting to have a national convention in which voices other than your preferred Establishment Republicans may be heard is the exact opposite of wanting to ‘silence’ people. By pretending that not to be the case you are doing nothing but damaging your own credibility with your readers. And repeatedly calling anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi just makes you sound foolish.
And you wrote, “ And frankly, if Romney had accomplished the same end as Paul, I would say the same about him.”
Kelly, are you really going to pretend not to know that what the Paul/Santorum slate succeeded in doing was exactly what the Romney/Establishment Republican slate attempted to do to Paul supporters? You said you don’t bring religion into politics. It’s beginning to seem that you don’t bring much honesty in either.
Bottom line, Kelly, both sides attempted to shut out the other from having delegates seated at the state convention. Our side won—your side lost. Man-up. Stop whining and move on.
Later Kelly,
Stephen
God, I love a challenge.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is I.
Stephen, if you're back to "the subject at hand," then your effort to crush my spirit... or something... with a cheap shot of my ability to "articulate" isn't getting that done.
Before this goes any further, please understand this: If you don't like how, when or what I write.... then feel free not to read it.
You want to discuss the issues, then stick to that. And the issue of my ability to articulate is not that.
This isn't about "principles of politics." I indicated that Santorum sold out. I provided an example of that. Feel free to disagree; that doesn't really change much.
For example, going into this convention as an uncommitted delegate, I had resolved not to vote for any of the GOP candidates.
Nothing has changed; I will not be voting in the presidential election.
That, of course, is my decision. But I will not sell out like Santorum did for political expediency or to silence a large segment of GOP voters in Clark County.
No, Stephen, that was the strategy your sort engaged in.
I am not terribly concerned as to whether you accept my level of correctness or not. I don't write for your amusement, I write what I feel like at the time.
I believe my example is correct; you don't. Bully for you.
I've been around politics long enough to maintain my integrity and to abhor efforts to silence the opposition.
"Disingenuous?" Well, I'm reminded of yet another politician telling us that it all depends on what your definition of is, is.
There was nothing disingenuous about what I wrote: that's how I saw it, that's how I see it.
I'm absolutely calm. The problem here is that if you truly did not believe he can be elected... then there's really no need to waste anyone's time on this nonsense: Paul will make absolutely no difference, one way or the other.
And, it appears, you knew that going in.
Who's being disingenuous now?
Stephen, you've apparently been out of the loop a long time if you think, for one second, I am a part of or support anything about the GOP establishment. I have, just for one example, been hammering Jaime Herrera like a gong since she started running... and she is built entirely of establishment parts. (See jamieherrerawatch.blogspot.com)
I am intrigued with the hypocrisy of your position, though.
On one hand, you express concern over "closing the convention down to any voices outside the Establishment Republicans" yet you and your sort engaged in that very thing, aimed at those same people because while you believe YOUR positions are worthy of discussion, you also believe those who disagree with those positions should be silenced.
Quite the dichotomy. If I were a Romney or Gingrich supporter, your efforts would have kept ME from having any voice at the state convention. But then, you can't mean THAT... can you?
Let me re-iterate. I do not care about establishment Republicans. What I care about is keeping whack jobs like Paul in as small a box as possible.
Ultimately, what you and those like you did here will make no difference beyond this state, except to pour gasoline on Santorum's political future and then lighting it.
If you and your sort want a voice at the national convention then run a candidate that the majority will vote for. You don't have that, so why should Paul be heard beyond the fact that YOU want him to be heard?
And that he might be heard doesn't mean he won't be ignored: he will be.
So what's the point?
When it comes to the hundreds of readers this blog has on a daily basis, what say you, let me, worry about my credibility?
And, by the way: I have called precisely no one a "Nazi." What I have done is shown the parallels between the attitudes shown by those in the early 3rd Reich and those following Paul. You know, like the death threats and so forth you people seem to favor?
Continued next post.
Apparently, you only read what you want to read. What I've written is this:
ReplyDelete"And frankly, if Romney had accomplished the same end as Paul, I would say the same about him.
I also wrote:
And, as I said, exploiting the system in place is where the Paul campaign get mad props.
English. Do you read it?
Stephen, you clearly read only what you want to read. *I* am not whining. I'm one of life's referees. I call them like I see them. And when it comes to "moving on," feel free to take your own advise and post it somewhere else.
Fini.