Let's start with cutting off the money
No, not for the troops. For the RNC, the NRSC, the NRCC, the MNGOP and any other co called 'Republican' organization that claim to represent 'our Republican values' on one hand, but whose actions show that they have absolutely no interest in holding our elected officials to those principles. Andy Aplikowski over at Residual Forces references Hugh Hewitt talking about this regarding the war in Iraq.
BUT, there are so many other reasons to cut off the money, since they just can't seem to act like Republicans. I got a call yesterday from the RNC looking for me to renew my membership. The guy was nice. Could speak well, knew his issues and wasn't 100% talking points. Grew up in Brainerd, which makes me wonder if they are purposefully having Minnesotans target Minnesota. Smart if so.
He was persistent, but I stood my ground. I told him that under no circumstances would I be contributing to any organization that spreads the money around. I'm now 100% candidate oriented giving. Here are the talking points if you're interested:
BUT, there are so many other reasons to cut off the money, since they just can't seem to act like Republicans. I got a call yesterday from the RNC looking for me to renew my membership. The guy was nice. Could speak well, knew his issues and wasn't 100% talking points. Grew up in Brainerd, which makes me wonder if they are purposefully having Minnesotans target Minnesota. Smart if so.
He was persistent, but I stood my ground. I told him that under no circumstances would I be contributing to any organization that spreads the money around. I'm now 100% candidate oriented giving. Here are the talking points if you're interested:
- "We're the only thing standing between the country and President Hillary Clinton"
- "Blah Blah Blah NANCY PELOSI blah blah blah SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL blah blah blah"
- "Blah blah blah GEORGE SOROS blah blah blah HUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEMOCRATS blah blah blah"
- "Blah blah blah HARRY REID blah blah blah"
I got the "Hillary" comment maybe 5 times in the course of the conversation. My response was "What about a good solid Conservative Candidate? Don't you think that a good candidate might be more likely to prevent President Hillary from becoming reality?" Of course, I got more "blah, blah, blah LIBERALS". I'm sure I'm not the only one giving them the "Not one more dime" speech, but how many people have to do that before they get the message?
I leave you with a bright spot here in Minnesota, although it doesn't speak well for our
posted by festivus | 1/23/2007 10:57:00 AM
I cut off my money and my vote for the 2006 campaign. I seem to recall I was the only one willing to deny Pawlenty the vote, though many of you knew at the time he was no conservative. At least I didn't vote for more spending and more McCain.
Giving to an occasional lonely voice in the wilderness candidate with whom you agree is a good alternative. Nothing to the party and caucuses from me for a while! (And I don't mind them calling so that I may tell them so.)
I am taking a slightly different tack. I am pledging "the amount requested," when they call, and then sending them only a small percentage of it, with a note saying something to the effect that "you will get the rest when you start acting like Republicans again." It's like leaving a dime tip for the waitress, signifying that you didn't forget but are just darned unhappy with the service.
J. Ewing
Since my uncle ran against Herb Kohl for U.S. Senate and the RNC wouldn't give him a DIME, none of our family has contributed a penny to them since (they used to contribute a sizable check every year, were delegates many times, George(41) and Barbara Bush's picture was placed higher than the family pictures, etc. etc.). My uncle lost in the closest race Kohl has had to losing his seat, outspent 6:2, and the money the RNC had originally committed to him before backing out would have been the difference in those few points.
I also find it more comfortable giving directly to a candidate who runs on conservative principles and will use all of the money as opposed to the RNC who will hire consultants who pride themselves on a "if we can't beat 'em, join 'em" party yes-(wo)man mentality.
I cannot argue with candidate-based giving as an individual tactic. What I would like to encourage, however, is that we start to recognize how much more leverage we could have with a state and national party ALIGNED with principled conservative candidates, all moving in the same direction. I know we don't have it now, but rather than simply punishing the party, as we believe voters did in the last election, why not "fix" it, and give people something to work, donate and vote
FOR for a change?
J. Ewing
Scribbler, it was a little presumptuous to claim that you were the only JAS conservative willing to deny Pawlenty the vote this past election. Many of us, as is our right, have opted to keep our ballot choices private.
I did mention more than once during the campaign that there was more reason for conservatives to vote for Pawlenty circa 2002 than there was in 2006. We should all acknowledge that the governor's track record for the past couple years and his campaign this past year left conservatives with no confidence that he would actually do anything good if re-elected. Maybe he would stop a few bad things, but in his first term, he only had one significant veto--the bill that would have increased the gas tax. In any case, the result was less enthusiasm for the governor among core conservtive voters--the "turnout intensity" gap that plagued Republicans nationwide. Pawlenty is very lucky that there was no one running to the right of him on the November ballot, and that the Hatch campaign imploded the final two weeks.
If anyone needed any evidence that the Republican party bosses are still wedded to protecting underacheiving public officials, there was the ill-conceived trial balloon launched earlier this month by MN Republican Party Chairman Ron Carey promoting Pawlenty for a THIRD term as governor. The timing couldn't have been more bizarre, since all Pawlenty had done since getting re-elected as a centrist was to promote policy intiatives that were to the left of what he touted on the campaign trail, and the budget proposals hadn't even been unveiled yet.
Bottom line: save your money for for family, or for other people and organizations more deserving.
Here is what I don't understand. Bloggers talk all the time about how "influential" they have become, and I believe it. Yet when they have a golden opportunity and NEED to wield that influence-- in this case over a seemingly wayward governor-- they throw up their hands and tell us to wait two years, and then they'll really show us how to sit idly by for two more?
J. Ewing
Post a Comment