.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Friday, February 16, 2007

What is the meaning of the Vote

I am trying to discern the meaning of the Congressional vote on the war today. Many democrats have expressed support for General Petreus, and he was supported by the Senate by overwhelming vote. The troop surge is the General's plan. So what are they voting for?

They only thing that makes sense is that they are voting that the war in Iraq is lost - a vote to announce defeat.

It is very obvious how bad this vote is going to look in the future. History is not kind on these types of things. Take the federalists who opposed the war of 1812 or the Whigs who opposed the Mexican war.

How sad.

What happens if Petreus's plan works? Will it still be a defeat since the Congress said so?

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

My Congressman, Jim Ramstadt voted with Pelosi. Anyone want to start a primary challenge?

3:26 PM, February 16, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I've been wanting to see that guy challenged for years. I'm on board! (But not because of the non-binding wishful thinking vote.) I challenge anyone to name any area in which Ramstad is either a conservative or a Republican.

4:57 PM, February 16, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Ramstad is my Congressman as well. I hope he gets a decent primary challenge this time around.

7:21 PM, February 17, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

Would be nice, but the practical side of things is that if he didn't get the endorsement, Ramstad would refile as an independent, run and probably win. He's very popular, having recently gotten more votes than ANY other house member, and he's got a lot of money.

Not that we shouldn't try, but it's a losing battle.

9:34 PM, February 18, 2007  
Blogger ReTorte said...

A rather beautiful blonde who knows how to handle her permitted concealed weapon versus Ramstad an R by his last name only... I'd call that grounds for opportunity.

11:23 PM, February 18, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I agree, Festivus should run.

7:07 AM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Ramstad is only popular in this district because he is a Republican. Not only is this the most Republican district by a mile in the state, it may be the most Republican district in the nation. We have all of Lake Minnetonka, and the undisputedly GOP suburbs of Eden Prairie, Plymouth and Maple Grove. I bet there's not a single precinct that votes DFL. ANYone running as a Republican would will here with the same margins. A DEMocrat running as a Republican would win here. (Case in point.)

7:11 AM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, I don't think the 3rd is the most Republican district-- that's either the 2nd or 6th, which sent two REAL Republicans to Congress last time. But if what you say is true, that Republican endorsement is equal to victory, then PLEASE, endorse somebody else and take the "R" away from him.

J. Ewing

8:22 AM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Scribbler has a point. Ramstad used to also win because Republicans controlled the House and he was better than a Democrat. But now things have changed. Ramstad no longer supports the troops, and there are a significant group of Republicans who will be single issue voters on supporting the troops (myself as one of them).

8:24 AM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

S'aurus is attempting to bait me. Ramstad voted FOR the war before he voted against it. But most importantly, he votes against freedom and for regulation. Throw in guns and abortion and he's no where near a conservative.

Which brings me to Ewing. I avoided saying most "conservative" district. Lake Minnetonkans are notoriously liberal Republicans, too busy making money to actually think about how they're getting reamed by government. The Third District has been too wimpy to endorse someone else. We almost did in 2002. But it's the primary that counts and Ramstad typically has more than 10 times the cash as any challenger.

8:56 AM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger festivus said...

Steb, you have your facts wrong. Plymouth is no longer "undisputedly GOP". Some parts are, but others aren't hence Senator Terri Bonoff. They are having real problems there, especially the parts served bh Hopkins School District 270.

As for Maple Grove, it is true that all Senate District 32 precincts went for Bush in 2004. However 32B, the one Maple Grove is in and doesn't include huge chunks of non-Maple Grove like Corcoran, Rogers, etc, is trending Democrat. I'd venture to say that if the DFL had put up a moderate female against Kurt Zellers rather than a retired hard left man with no charisma, Zellers would have lost hard. As it was, he only won by 300 or so votes. I'd venture to guess that Kurt is high on their target list for 2008, and my guess is that he loses. As a side commentary, he's been squishy on some issues, voting for the big bonding bill and actually sponsoring the Shubert theater mess. I don't want him to lose, but the squishy doesn't make me want to pull out the stops, and the district changes make it tough for him.

'R' does not equal victory in the 3rd. A very moderate Republican does, and like it or not, the Rammer's picture is in the dictionary next to that phrase.

I'm only blonde if gray counts!

10:29 AM, February 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someday, somehow, Republicans have to learn that most voters don't care about the party or the candidate. They just want somebody that stands up consistently on principle, so they know what they're getting, and they're not that fussy about what the principle is. Given two principled candidates, of course, the conservative and/or Republican (you're correct, that's not redundant) generally wins, because most people hold conservative principles.

J. Ewing

1:29 PM, February 19, 2007  
Blogger Courier A said...

If fellow JAS devotees will allow someone who has dwelled in glass houses from time to time to throw a big rhetorical rock at Festivus, I dare say it may be time to rediscover JAS' Amery Award for injecting obscure Minnesota political references in a debate. This thread started with vilifying those who supported a “non-binding”, no-confidence vote on Iraq policy, and with speculation that it may finally be time to mount an intraparty challenge to Congressman Ramstad. It has now been reduced to Festivus warning us that only Ramstad can hold the seat for Republicans, since some precincts in state house district 32B have begun “trending Democrat”.

My response to that observation is this: the materially secure, barely-informed voters of the western Mpls. suburbs are less interested in being Democrats than in being seen as keeping up with trends, and that Ramstad and too many other incumbent Republicans are not willing to take the lead in setting any worthwhile trends. Note that the voters in Festivus’ neighborhood continually re-elect Sen. Warren Limmer, who is an articulate, unapologetic champion of conservative principles as well as his district’s local interests.

While Cong. Ramstad has always been a mushy-headed squish on social and environmental issues, there used to be an argument that his support for conservative fiscal and foreign policy made his offenses against conservatism tolerable. I wouldn’t have necessarily agreed with those making the argument, but at least could see that there was ground for legitimate argument. No longer. It’s not just the no-confidence vote on Iraq policy; he has also sided with the Democrat Congressional leadership on such issues as minimum wage.

When you consider that his district is not in any danger of being overrun with nomadic radical protesters or poor people struggling to support an entire family on one breadwinner’s minimum-wage income, you can only conclude that the Congressman has lost interest in standing up for anything conservative. So then, what net good would come from him having a lot of seniority if the Republicans somehow managed to reclaim control of Congress soon?

For those of us who know Festivus and his bold, right-wing pronouncements full of withering criticism for those who deserve it, we can’t help but be puzzled by his reticence to consider the possibility of unseating milquetoast, establishment office-holders. We know you have what it takes, so as the momentum builds for Scribbler’s “Draft Festivus” movement, we trust you will have the courage of conviction to accept your calling and lead our triumph over the RINO usurper!

P.S.: It's "whip", not "whipped".

4:09 PM, February 21, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Courier, I believe it was your lovely wife who initiated the Draft Festivus movement.

I don't place much importance on Ramstad's Iraq vote as he's been back and forth and will likely be back again. But a dubious claim that he has been fiscally conservative aside, he has always been pro-regulation. I don't know how our district's many business owners have been able to abide that.

4:17 PM, February 21, 2007  

Post a Comment